Skip to main content
Glama
Selenium39

Qiita API MCP Server

is_user_followed

Check if you are following a specific user on Qiita, the Japanese developer community platform, to manage your connections.

Instructions

指定されたユーザーをフォローしているかどうかを確認します

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userIdYesユーザーID

Implementation Reference

  • Handler for the 'is_user_followed' tool. Validates input with userIdSchema and executes by calling client.isUserFollowed(userId).
    is_user_followed: {
      schema: userIdSchema,
      execute: async ({ userId }, client) => client.isUserFollowed(userId),
    },
  • MCP tool metadata definition including name, description, and JSON input schema for 'is_user_followed'.
    {
      name: 'is_user_followed',
      description: '指定されたユーザーをフォローしているかどうかを確認します',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          userId: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'ユーザーID',
          },
        },
        required: ['userId'],
      },
    },
  • Core implementation of isUserFollowed in QiitaApiClient. Checks if the authenticated user follows the given userId by attempting to GET /users/{userId}/following and handling 404.
    async isUserFollowed(userId: string) {
      this.assertAuthenticated();
      try {
        await this.client.get(`/users/${userId}/following`);
        return { following: true };
      } catch (error: any) {
        if (error.response?.status === 404) {
          return { following: false };
        }
        throw error;
      }
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks follow status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the return value indicates (e.g., boolean or detailed response). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 in Japanese that directly states the tool's function without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place, adhering perfectly to conciseness standards.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output. While adequate for a simple check, it doesn't provide enough information for an agent to use it effectively in all scenarios, such as understanding authentication needs or interpreting results.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'userId' parameter documented as 'ユーザーID' (user ID). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, which is appropriate here as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: '指定されたユーザーをフォローしているかどうかを確認します' (Check if a specified user is being followed). It uses a specific verb ('確認します' - check/verify) and resource ('ユーザー' - user), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user_followers' or 'get_user_followees', which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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 prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare it to siblings like 'get_user_followers' (which might list followers), or specify use cases (e.g., checking follow status before performing an action). This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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/Selenium39/mcp-server-qiita'

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