Retrieve accounts a Twitter user or the authenticated account is following, with an adjustable count to control results.
List accounts that a Twitter user or the authenticated account is following
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of accounts to return (1-200) | |
| username | No | Twitter username (if not provided, returns authenticated user's following) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it. It says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination or cursoring beyond the count ceiling, result ordering, or what happens when the target account is private or nonexistent. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves the agent guessing at runtime behavior.
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 tightly worded sentence with no filler, and the primary object of the operation is front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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?
The tool is simple (two optional params, no output schema, no nesting), so the description is nearly sufficient for correct invocation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should state at minimum what the call returns and how the default-authenticated-user path behaves in terms of auth, which it does not.
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%, so both parameters are already documented in structured form, and the description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond restating that username is optional. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('accounts ... following'), and the direction of the relationship is unambiguous, which implicitly separates it from the sibling list_followers. It stops short of naming any sibling or clarifying edge cases like suspended or private accounts, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this to inspect a follow graph, and the parenthetical about the authenticated account hints at the no-username case. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_profile, follow_user, or list_followers instead, and no prerequisites stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.