bookmarksRetrieve statuses saved by the authenticated Mastodon account, with an optional limit up to 40 results per request.
Get statuses bookmarked by the authenticated account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results (default 20, max 40). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.5Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / limit / defaultAdded value: +20Output 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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no pagination behavior, ordering, or auth context — so it contributes no behavioral value.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately terse for a one-parameter list tool, though it leaves room for routing context that would earn a 5.
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 optional param, output schema present, rich annotations), so return values need not be explained. Still, the description could note that results are the authenticated account's and how pagination beyond the limit behaves; adequate but with clear gaps.
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% with a single optional 'limit' parameter fully documented (default 20, max 40). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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 (statuses bookmarked by the authenticated account), and the word 'bookmarked' distinguishes it from the sibling 'favourites'. However it does not explicitly contrast with status_bookmark/status_unbookmark or favourites beyond the implicit wording.
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?
Usage is implied: an agent can infer this lists the authenticated user's bookmarks. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the favoured 'favourites' alternative, and no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.