list_followingLists the authors or publications followed by the logged-in Medium user, with total count. Supports filtering by users or publications and cursor-based pagination.
Authors (default) or publications the logged-in user follows, with the total count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | users | |
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | nextCursor from a previous call. |
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=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful behavioral context by scoping results to the logged-in user and mentioning the total count in the response. It does not contradict the annotations, though it does not disclose pagination behavior beyond what the schema's cursor description already provides.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the primary choice (authors vs publications), states the scope (logged-in user), and includes the notable response detail (total count). There is no filler or redundant wording.
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?
For a simple read-only list endpoint with no required parameters, the description plus annotations and schema-provided cursor/limit constraints are largely sufficient. The lack of an output schema is partly mitigated by mentioning the total count, though item-level response fields are not described.
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?
The description clarifies the key enum parameter by mapping 'users' to 'Authors' and noting the default. However, schema description coverage is only 33%, and the description does not add meaning for limit or further explain cursor beyond the schema's 'nextCursor from a previous call' note, so compensation is only partial.
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 uses a specific verb ('list') and a precise resource scope: authors or publications followed by the logged-in user. It also adds the total-count detail, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from siblings like get_feed or list_reading_lists.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as get_feed or get_list. Usage is implied by the description's phrasing but not spelled out, so an agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.