Skip to main content
Glama
remuzel

Polarsteps MCP Server

by remuzel

get_user_social

Retrieve a user's social profile data including followers, followees, counts, and popularity status from the Polarsteps travel platform.

Instructions

Get a users' social information including: followers, followees, their count and if they're considered popular.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
usernameYesThe username of the Polarstep user to look for.

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'get_user_social' tool. It retrieves the user by username using _get_user, checks if found, and returns social info or error message.
    def get_user_social(
        polarsteps_client: PolarstepsClient, input: GetUserSocial
    ) -> list[TextContent]:
        user = _get_user(polarsteps_client, input.username)
        if user.id == -1:
            return single_text_content(
                f"User not found: No Polarsteps user exists with username={input.username}. Please verify the username is correct and the user's profile is public."
            )
        return single_text_content(user.to_social())
  • Pydantic schema/model for input validation of the get_user_social tool, requiring a 'username' field.
    class GetUserSocial(BaseModel):
        username: str = Field(
            ...,
            description="The username of the Polarstep user to look for.",
        )
  • Registration of the 'get_user_social' tool in the PolarstepsTool enum, including name, description, and schema.
    USER_SOCIAL = (
        "get_user_social",
        "Get a users' social information including: followers, followees, their count and if they're considered popular.",
        GetUserSocial,
    )
  • Tool dispatch/registration in the MCP server's call_tool handler, matching on the tool name and calling the handler with client and parsed input.
    case PolarstepsTool.USER_SOCIAL:
        input = GetUserSocial(**args)
        return get_user_social(client, input)
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 describes what information is retrieved but lacks details on behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or data freshness. For a read operation 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in a single sentence with specific details. There's no unnecessary verbosity, and every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring it more clearly (e.g., separating the list of information retrieved).

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 complexity (simple read operation with one parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what data is retrieved but doesn't cover behavioral aspects or usage context. With no output schema, it doesn't describe return values, which is a gap, but the description compensates somewhat by listing the information included.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'username' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify format constraints or examples for 'username'). Since the schema handles the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Get a users' social information' with specific details about what information is retrieved (followers, followees, count, popularity status). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('social information'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_user_profile' or 'get_user_stats', which might also retrieve user-related data.

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 sibling tools like 'get_user_profile' or 'get_user_stats', nor does it specify contexts or prerequisites for usage. The only implied usage is retrieving social data for a user, but there's no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool recommendations.

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/remuzel/polarsteps-mcp'

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