follow_user
Follow a Twitter user by providing their username (without @).
Instructions
Follow a user by username
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | Username to follow (without @) |
Follow a Twitter user by providing their username (without @).
Follow a user by username
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | Username to follow (without @) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the action but does not disclose behavior on errors (user not found, already following), side effects, or authorization needs.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative without being verbose, so not a perfect 5.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core action but lacks context on prerequisites and error scenarios, making it minimally adequate.
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 coverage is 100% and the parameter 'username' is described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb ('Follow') and resource ('a user'), and the parameter specification makes it distinct from sibling tools, none of which perform a follow action.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions for use (e.g., user existence, authentication requirements).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/isteamhq/twitter-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server