Retrieve followers, following, set requests, or developer claims for RetroAchievements users and API-key owners.
User's set requests or dev claims; or who the API-key owner follows / is followed by (ignores user).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| user | No | Default: configured user | |
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| all_requests | No | set_requests: include fulfilled |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses that for following/followers the tool silently ignores the user argument and instead reads the API-key owner's graph. That is a non-obvious quirk worth surfacing.
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?
It is a single compact sentence with no filler, and the behavioral caveat is present. However, the telegraphic phrasing and semicolon-splice make it harder to parse than a plainly front-loaded sentence would be, so brevity comes at some cost to clarity.
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?
With 5 parameters, 40% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the trickiest interaction (kind × user) but omits return shape and pagination semantics. It is minimally adequate rather than complete for a tool of this complexity.
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 40%, so the description is expected to carry some weight. It clarifies the semantics of `user` (ignored for two of four kinds) and implicitly the mapping of `kind` values, but says nothing about limit/offset pagination behavior or the all_requests flag, leaving a partial gap.
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 names a resource (user social data) and enumerates the four facets it can return, but relies on opaque jargon like 'set requests' and 'dev claims' that an agent cannot decode without external knowledge. It does distinguish the two behavioral modes (per-user vs. API-key-owner), which separates it somewhat from siblings, but the core purpose remains murky.
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 '(ignores user)' clause is genuine usage guidance – it tells the agent that the user param is void for the following/followers kinds – but there is no explicit when-to-use framing and no mention of the sibling tools (get_user_profile, get_feed, etc.) that cover adjacent data. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.