Checks whether the authenticated user follows a given Arabic tag, optionally scoped to a city, returning true or false.
True/false whether the authenticated user follows tag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | Yes | Arabic tag name to check the authenticated user's follow status for. | |
| city | No | Optional Arabic region name to scope the check. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Input schema / properties / city / descriptionAdded value: +"Optional Arabic region name to scope the check."Input schema / properties / tag / descriptionAdded value: +"Arabic tag name to check the authenticated user's follow status for."v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the result is a true/false boolean scoped to the authenticated user, which compensates for the absent output schema, but it says nothing about failure modes, missing tags, or unauthenticated 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, front-loaded sentence that states the check and the return type with no filler. Nothing could be cut without losing information.
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 two-parameter boolean read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers the essentials, including the return type that would otherwise be missing without an output schema. Only the optional city scoping and edge-case behavior go unmentioned.
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 both `tag` (required, Arabic tag name) and `city` (optional scoping region) fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies; notably it never hints that a city scoping option exists.
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 check (follow status of a tag) and even names the return value (true/false), which is more than a tautology. It implicitly separates itself from sibling is_following_user by specifying a tag rather than a user, though it never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.
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 implied by the purpose – an agent reading it knows to call it when it needs a boolean follow check for a tag. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives such as is_following_user or related_tags.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.