pinterest_list_followersList accounts that follow the authenticated Pinterest user, with bookmark and page_size controls to paginate follower results.
List the accounts following the authenticated user. Scope: user_accounts:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bookmark | No | Opaque cursor from a previous response's `bookmark` field. Omit for the first page. | |
| page_size | No | Results per page, 1-250. Pinterest defaults to 25. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful non-schema detail, the required OAuth scope (user_accounts:read), but says nothing about pagination behavior or rate limits beyond what the schema already documents.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler; the operation is front-loaded and the scope constraint is appended compactly. Every clause earns its place.
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 read-only paged list, the description plus annotations and a fully documented schema cover what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Nothing explains the shape of returned account objects, but that gap is minor for a simple listing tool with no output schema.
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 bookmark and page_size fully documented in the schema itself, including defaults and ranges. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 the accounts following the authenticated user'), which correctly frames the follower direction and implicitly distinguishes it from the inverse pinterest_list_following. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction.
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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of pinterest_list_following, the obvious inverse operation an agent could confuse this with. The only cue is the phrasing 'following the authenticated user,' which is left for the reader to interpret.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.