account_followFollow a Mastodon account using its numeric ID to add its posts to your home timeline.
Follow an account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | Yes | Numeric account ID to follow. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.5Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object",
+ "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
+}v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true), so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable write. But the description adds nothing beyond them: it does not state whether following is private/approved, whether it triggers notifications, what happens on re-follow, or what the output contains. For a mutation tool the structured fields do the work and the prose is empty.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with no wasted words. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but structurally it is clean.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single param is fully documented. What remains missing is any behavioral or routing context for a write action in a dense sibling set. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 coverage is 100%, and the single account_id parameter is documented as 'Numeric account ID to follow.' The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb (Follow) and resource (account), so the basic action is clear. However, it does nothing to differentiate from the obvious sibling account_unfollow, or from account_mute/account_block which are adjacent relationship actions. The name and title already convey this much, so the description adds almost no clarity beyond the label.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no mention of related alternatives. With 50+ siblings including account_unfollow, account_mute, account_block, and account_relationships, an agent gets no help choosing this tool over the others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.