account_followersRetrieve a Mastodon account's followers by numeric account ID, with an optional limit to control the number of results.
Get followers of an account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results (default 40, max 80). | |
| account_id | Yes | Numeric account ID. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.5Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / limit / defaultAdded value: +40Output 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no pagination behavior, no visibility/blocking caveats, no note on whether followers are returned in a stable order.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. Its terseness is a completeness problem rather than a structure problem, so it scores well here even though the content is thin.
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?
Because an output schema exists, return values need not be described, and the schema fully covers the two parameters. However, for a paginated follower-listing read operation, the complete absence of usage or behavioral context leaves the definition minimally viable rather than complete.
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%, documenting both account_id and the limit default/max, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable but yields the baseline 3.
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 clear verb and resource ('Get followers of an account'), which is more than a tautology, but it does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling account_following (the inverse relationship) or explain any scope nuance. An agent can infer the purpose, but the description adds nothing beyond the name.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative account_following for the reverse direction, and no prerequisites or context for selecting this tool over account_relationships or list_accounts. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.