account_verifyRetrieves the authenticated Mastodon account's profile data to verify which account is active. Includes username, display name, and follower count.
Get the authenticated account's own profile.
Returns: str: JSON with account id, username, display_name, followers_count, etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 readOnly=true, idempotent=true, non-destructive, openWorld, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that it returns a profile JSON with field examples, which duplicates the output schema; it says nothing extra about auth prerequisites or failure modes for an unauthenticated caller.
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?
Very short and front-loaded, with the operative statement in the first sentence. The "Returns" block is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but it is compact and does no real harm.
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?
For a zero-parameter read with annotations covering safety and a declared output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what it touches. Since an output schema is present, the enumerated return fields are surplus rather than missing, so nothing essential is absent.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the schema-completeness baseline of 4 applies. It correctly avoids inventing parameter semantics that do not exist.
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 and resource ("Get the authenticated account's own profile") and its scope word "own" implicitly distinguishes it from sibling account_get, which would target arbitrary accounts. It is clear, but it never names the sibling it differs from, so the differentiation must be inferred from the sibling list.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative. The phrase "authenticated account's own profile" implies the usage context (no id needed, self-scoped), which is enough to be usable but leaves the agent to infer the boundary against account_get and account_search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.