Agent Twitter Client MCP

follow_user

Follow a Twitter user by username to add them to your following list and see their tweets in your timeline.

Instructions

Follow a Twitter user

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "username": "<username>"
    },
    "name": "follow_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`username`	Yes	Username to follow (without @)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJan 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Follow a Twitter user,' with no mention of idempotency (safe to call again?), effects (e.g., rate limiting, notification), or error states (e.g., user not found). Significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence, but lacks structure (e.g., no paragraphs or bullet points). Given the simplicity, it is not overly wasteful, but could be improved by adding a brief note on behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple action with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal and lacks context about return value, error handling, and side effects. More completeness is needed to guide an AI agent effectively.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter 'username' described as 'Username to follow (without @).' 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.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the action ('Follow') and resource ('a Twitter user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it could be slightly more specific about the expected input (username format), though the schema already provides that.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., if already following, or when to use other social actions like like_tweet). No mention of prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or context. Lacks explicit usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server