Retrieve a Twitter user's followers or the authenticated account's followers, with an adjustable count limit for account research and audience analysis.
List followers of a Twitter user or the authenticated account
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of followers to return (1-200) | |
| username | No | Twitter username (if not provided, returns authenticated user's followers) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Beyond implying a read ('List'), it says nothing about pagination, rate limits, ordering of results, handling of protected accounts, or error behavior when a username is invalid.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is appropriately sized, though it could carry one more clause of operational detail without becoming bloated.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It leaves out result format, pagination for accounts with more than 200 followers, and how ordering works, which an agent would need to call it confidently.
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 100%, with both the count range (1-200, default 20) and the username fallback to the authenticated account already documented in the schema. The description's mention of the authenticated-account fallback merely restates the schema rather than adding new meaning.
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 and resource ('List followers') and clarifies the target can be a named Twitter user or the authenticated account. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_following, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_following. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the resource it names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.