get_v2_FollowersUser Followers Group: User. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Use the User By Screen Name endpoint to find the ID from a username. | |
| count | No | Number of results | |
| cursor | No | Cursor for other results |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions billing cost, giving no information about safety, side effects, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens to the data. Nothing beyond the structured fields is conveyed.
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?
The description is extremely brief, but this brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness. It fails to front-load the core purpose and instead focuses on billing, which is not the primary function. The single sentence does not earn its place by conveying actionable information.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (pagination via cursor, type of results, potential restrictions) and the absence of an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain return format, pagination behavior, or any edge cases, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.
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 input schema documents all three parameters with descriptions and examples, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema itself is sufficient for basic understanding, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 only provides a generic label 'User Followers' and a billing note. It does not explicitly state that this tool retrieves a list of followers for a given user. The intent is only inferable from the tool name and title, which is insufficient for an agent to determine what action it performs.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_v1_1_Followers or get_v2_Following. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent without direction for appropriate selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools appear to do the same thing, such as get_v1_1_Followers vs get_v2_Followers and get_v2_Tweet vs get_v2_TweetDetail. The descriptions are too brief to clarify differences, and multiple user lookup tools (get_v1_1_Users, get_v2_UserByRestId, etc.) create confusion.
Naming is inconsistent, mixing camelCase (get_ShortUrl), snake_case (get_email_search_by_username), and version prefixes with varying formats (get_v1_1 vs get_v2). No uniform verb_noun pattern is followed.
With 32 tools, the server is overloaded, especially given many redundant variations across API versions. The count exceeds the 25-tool threshold for too many tools, and many could be consolidated.
The server is entirely read-only (all tools are GET), missing write operations like posting tweets, following users, or sending direct messages. This is a significant gap for a Twitter server, and even read coverage has redundancies rather than comprehensive distinct endpoints.