@jam-jam/convert-mcp

List the accounts I follow

jj_list_following

Lists followed accounts newest first, or pending follow requests sent to private accounts when status is requested.

Instructions

Lists the accounts the calling account follows, newest first. status="requested" lists the requests it has sent to private accounts and that are still pending. Following and un-following are done in the Jam Jam application, never by API.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "jj_list_following"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Page size, default 30, hard cap 100.
`cursor`	No	Opaque cursor from a previous call's `nextCursor`. Replay it verbatim.
`status`	No	"accepted" (default) for established follows, "requested" for pending requests. Closed list: any other value is refused, the two states never mix.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.2Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does meaningful work: it discloses ordering (newest first), the semantics of the pending-request mode, and the important constraint that the two states never mix. It does not describe the returned item shape, eventual-consistency behavior, or whether pending requests to now-public accounts resolve.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the mode distinction, then the guardrail about writes. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a three-parameter, non-destructive list tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, ordering, mode semantics, and the write prohibition. The only real gap is that it says nothing about what each listed account contains, which matters somewhat since there is no output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so limit and cursor are already fully documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema for status by explaining that "requested" are pending requests sent to private accounts — context the enum listing alone does not convey.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

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

A specific verb and resource ("Lists the accounts the calling account follows") plus an ordering guarantee ("newest first"). The phrase "the calling account follows" also implicitly separates it from a followers listing, so an agent can distinguish it from jj_list_followers without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains the two modes clearly: default established follows, and status="requested" for still-pending requests to private accounts. It also states a negative rule — following/un-following happens in the app, never via API — which prevents an agent from hunting for a write tool. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative.

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