Skip to main content
Glama
RajGehlot28

@twitterapis/mcp

by RajGehlot28
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

twitter_user_verified_followers

Read-only

Retrieve a Twitter/X user's verified followers by username or ID, filtering results to accounts with checkmarks. Use cursor pagination to scan notable or institutional followers.

Instructions

List a user's followers who have a verified account (checkmark). Filters the follower list to verified accounts only, useful for identifying notable or institutional followers. Paginate with cursor.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNoRequested page size, capped at 200. Advisory only for this endpoint: X's own search backend typically returns around 13 to 20 tweets per page regardless of the value requested here, an upstream limit, not something this API controls. To retrieve more results, page with the cursor from the previous response rather than raising this value.
cursorNoOpaque pagination cursor from a previous response's next_cursor field. Omit on the first call; pass on subsequent calls to fetch the next page.
user_idNoNumeric Twitter/X user id (e.g. "44196397"). Provide exactly one of username or user_id.
usernameNoTwitter/X handle WITHOUT the leading @ (e.g. "elonmusk", "openai"). Provide exactly one of username or user_id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.9.9

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that and the pagination remark, which is already documented in the cursor schema field; nothing about result volume, rate limits, or auth scope is disclosed.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the defining filter and ending with the operational hint. Nothing is padded, though the third sentence largely restates schema content.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple paginated read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (verified followers only) and how to page. It omits any note about who may query this or the practical page-size ceiling, but those live in the schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including the detailed count cap, the upstream 13-20-per-page limit, and the mutually exclusive username/user_id pairing. The description's only parameter-related statement ("Paginate with cursor") duplicates the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List a user's followers") plus the defining filter ("who have a verified account"), which implicitly separates it from twitter_user_followers and twitter_list_followers. It never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing rather than read it.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

"Useful for identifying notable or institutional followers" gives a use case but no when-to-use-vs-when-not guidance and no named alternative. An agent can infer that the unfiltered twitter_user_followers is the fallback, but the description never says so.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools