account_getRetrieve a Mastodon account profile using its numeric ID. Enables AI assistants to fetch account details for user lookups and mentions.
Get a Mastodon account by its numeric ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | Yes | Numeric account ID. |
| 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no authentication requirements, failure behavior for missing accounts, or rate-limit notes—so it contributes little beyond the structured fields.
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 sentence, no waste, and the key constraint (numeric ID) is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple single-parameter tool.
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?
The tool is simple, has full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values or safety. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though with many sibling account tools a routing hint would improve completeness.
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%, and the single parameter is already documented as 'Numeric account ID.' The description repeats the same numeric-ID constraint without adding format details, examples, or edge cases, 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 ('Get') and resource ('Mastodon account') with the lookup key ('numeric ID'), which clearly separates it from account_search and timeline-style siblings. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from related account tools like account_verify or account_relationships, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.
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?
The description only implies usage by requiring a numeric ID. It gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over account_search, account_verify, or other account-related siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.