GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_user_followers

Read-only

Lists followers of a specified GitFlic user, with optional username filtering, result limits, and field selection to narrow the response.

Instructions

List a user's followers.

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": {
      "alias": "<alias>"
    },
    "name": "gitflic_user_followers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Username substring filter.
`raw`	No	Return the full, un-slimmed GitFlic response for THIS call (no token compression). Use when the default slim view dropped a field you need.
`alias`	Yes
`limit`	No	Return at most N.
`fields`	No	Return only these top-level fields (plus id keys), narrowing the response further.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the annotations — no ordering of followers, no pagination behavior, no indication of what a follower record contains, and no note that the alias must be a GitFlic username.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which suits a simple list operation. It is not padded or repetitive, though it is arguably too sparse rather than too verbose.

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?

The tool has five parameters, a required alias, and no output schema, yet the description never explains the identity of the alias, the shape of a follower entry, or how limit/fields affect the result. Given the absent output schema, the description should carry more of that burden than one sentence.

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 description coverage is 80% and the schema itself documents q, raw, limit, and fields, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes no parameter meaning of its own and does not clarify the undocumented required `alias` parameter.

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 pairs a specific verb (List) with a specific resource (a user's followers), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as gitflic_user_get or gitflic_user_search, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of gitflic_user_get or gitflic_user_search, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server