account_unfollowStop following a Mastodon account by supplying its numeric account ID, removing it from your following list.
Unfollow an account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | Yes | Numeric account ID to unfollow. |
| 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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and repeat-call profile. The description adds nothing beyond that—no note on whether the follow relationship is mutual, whether the target account is notified, or what errors occur for invalid/self IDs.
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 three-word sentence with zero waste and the action front-loaded. It is terse to the point of being thin, but nothing is padded or buried.
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 (one required param), the output schema covers return values, and annotations cover the safety profile, so very little prose is required. However, for a mutation that changes a social relationship, the description omits any effect/error context an agent might want before calling it.
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 parameter carries its own description ('Numeric account ID to unfollow'), so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no format, range, or resolution detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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 description states a specific verb (Unfollow) and resource (an account), so an agent can immediately tell it apart from account_follow and the block/mute family. It stops short of explicitly naming the inverse or scoping behavior, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 pointer to alternatives such as account_block or account_mute for related but distinct intents. The agent must infer the use case 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.