mastodon-mcp-server

Account Unmute

account_unmute

Idempotent

Unmute a Mastodon account by numeric ID to restore its posts and interactions in your timeline.

Instructions

Unmute an account.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account_id`	Yes	Numeric account ID to unmute.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.5Sep 12, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "result": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "type": "object",
+  "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
+}

First observedv1.0.1Jun 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does 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: it does not note reversibility (the mute counterpart), auth requirements, or effects on existing relationships.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, appropriate for a low-complexity one-parameter tool. It stops just short of earning a 5 because the brevity leaves the sibling ambiguity unresolved.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter operation with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values or safety. The only real gap is distinguishing this from account_mute/account_unblock.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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 as 'Numeric account ID to unmute.' The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Unmute') and resource ('an account'), so the operation is unambiguous. However it offers no differentiation from closely related siblings like account_mute, account_block, or account_unblock, which an agent selecting between them would benefit from.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion conditions. The sibling set contains both account_mute and account_unblock, so guidance on choosing among them is genuinely needed and entirely absent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server