Skip to main content
Glama

pylon_get_issue_followers

Retrieve users following a specific issue in the Pylon customer support platform to track engagement and notifications.

Instructions

Get the list of users following an issue

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe issue ID

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:439-451 (registration)
    Registers the pylon_get_issue_followers MCP tool, including description, input schema, and inline handler function.
    server.tool(
    	'pylon_get_issue_followers',
    	'Get the list of users following an issue',
    	{
    		id: z.string().describe('The issue ID'),
    	},
    	async ({ id }) => {
    		const result = await client.getIssueFollowers(id);
    		return {
    			content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],
    		};
    	},
    );
  • Inline handler function for the tool that invokes PylonClient.getIssueFollowers and returns JSON-formatted response.
    async ({ id }) => {
    	const result = await client.getIssueFollowers(id);
    	return {
    		content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],
    	};
  • Zod input schema defining the required 'id' parameter for the tool.
    {
    	id: z.string().describe('The issue ID'),
    },
  • PylonClient helper method that performs the actual API GET request to retrieve followers for the specified issue.
    async getIssueFollowers(
    	id: string,
    ): Promise<PaginatedResponse<{ id: string; email: string }>> {
    	return this.request<PaginatedResponse<{ id: string; email: string }>>(
    		'GET',
    		`/issues/${id}/followers`,
    	);
    }
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be (e.g., list structure, pagination). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to handle the tool effectively.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, output format, or error handling, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool correctly in a broader context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the 'id' parameter is documented as 'The issue ID'), the baseline score of 3 applies. The description doesn't elaborate on parameter usage, constraints, or examples.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get the list') and resource ('users following an issue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pylon_get_issue' or 'pylon_update_issue_followers', which would require mentioning it's specifically for followers rather than general issue data or updates.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'pylon_get_issue' for general issue info or 'pylon_update_issue_followers' for modifying followers, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/JustinBeckwith/pylon-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server