Fetch a bounded sample of any X account's followers or following list. Specify handle, tab, and limit to inspect connections without needing the full graph.
Read a bounded sample of the named account’s visible followers or following list. Does not claim a complete graph.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab | No | followers | |
| limit | No | ||
| handle | Yes | ||
| maxScrolls | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the result is 'bounded,' only 'visible' connections are included, and completeness is explicitly disclaimed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and every clause adds meaningful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description is too high-level to fully guide invocation. It omits how limit and maxScrolls control the sample, any pagination behavior, and what the response contains. Annotations cover safety but not operational details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It only loosely maps to handle ('named account'), tab ('followers or following'), and boundedness (limit/maxScrolls), but it does not explain parameter semantics, defaults, or the meaning of maxScrolls, leaving a substantial gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Read'), a clear resource ('the named account’s visible followers or following list'), and adds a crucial scope qualifier: 'bounded sample.' The sentence 'Does not claim a complete graph' explicitly separates this from snapshot-style tools that promise full data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for scenarios needing a limited or approximate view of connections, and the 'does not claim a complete graph' caveat hints that a full snapshot tool would be the alternative. However, it never names a sibling tool or states explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.