account_muteMute a Mastodon account by numeric account ID to stop seeing its posts. Use this to hide unwanted content from your timeline.
Mute an account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | Yes | Numeric account ID to mute. |
| 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=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't state what muting changes, whether it is reversible, or whether authentication as the muting account is required.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero padding, which is structurally clean. However, the brevity crosses into under-specification for a mutation tool rather than representing genuine economy.
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. But for a state-changing relationship operation with no annotations describing effects, the description leaves out side effects, reversibility, and relationship to sibling mute/block tools, making it too thin for the operation's complexity.
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 account_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional meaning about accepted ID forms or whether the caller's own ID is permitted.
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 phrase "Mute an account" gives a verb and resource, so the action is identifiable, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title with no elaboration. It does not distinguish the tool from close siblings such as account_block, account_unmute, or mutes, nor does it say what muting actually suppresses (notifications, timeline visibility).
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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as account_block for stronger suppression or mutes for reviewing muted accounts. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.