Check if the authenticated Haraj user follows a specified username, returning true or false to verify follow status.
True/false whether the authenticated user follows username.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | Haraj username to check. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Input schema / properties / username / descriptionAdded value: +"Haraj username to check."v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail, that the relationship is evaluated from the authenticated user's perspective, but says nothing about behavior for nonexistent users or whether an auth failure is surfaced as an error.
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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the return type and the subject of the query. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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 one-parameter boolean predicate with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it returns (true/false) and whose perspective it uses, which is enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around auth requirements and unknown-user behavior.
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% and the single `username` parameter is already documented in the schema as a Haraj username. The description merely echoes the parameter name, adding no format or resolution semantics beyond it, 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 predicate (true/false) over a specific resource (follow relationship between the authenticated user and `username`). It is clearly distinguishable from the mutation sibling `follow_user` by the boolean framing, though it never names 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated preconditions (e.g. must be authenticated), and no routing to alternatives such as `follow_user` or `is_following_tag`. Usage is only inferable from the predicate wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.