account_followingRetrieve the list of accounts a specified Mastodon account follows. Use account_id and optional limit to control results.
Get accounts that a given account follows.
| 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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no ordering, no pagination/cursor semantics, no note on what happens past the 80-result cap. It merely restates the operation.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with paginated results.
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 annotations cover safety. What's missing is the relationship to the sibling account_followers and any pagination/ordering note; for a simple two-parameter read tool the description is minimally adequate but leaves routing to the agent.
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 description coverage is 100%: both account_id and limit (default 40, max 80) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or range meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('accounts that a given account follows'), and the follows/followers wording inherently distinguishes it from the sibling account_followers. An agent can select it without opening either schema.
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 guidance on when to use this versus account_followers, account_relationships, or account_follow. No mention of pagination behavior or when to raise the limit. 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.