favouritesRetrieve statuses you have favorited on Mastodon to review your liked posts or find saved content for later reference.
Get statuses favourited 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no ordering, no pagination/cursor behavior, no note on whether the list is live or cached. It essentially restates the read semantics the annotations already encode.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the key scope. Nothing is padded, but it is arguably too terse for a list tool with no usage framing.
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, and the single parameter is fully documented. However, for a paginated-style list endpoint capped at 40 results, the absence of any guidance on ordering, cursor behavior, or how to get older favourites leaves a real gap.
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?
There is a single optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents limit with its default and maximum. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, 3 is appropriate; the description adds no syntax or formatting detail the schema lacks.
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 and resource: retrieving statuses favourited by the authenticated account. The 'by the authenticated account' scoping implicitly separates it from status_favourited_by, but the description never names or contrasts with its closest sibling (bookmarks), so differentiation is left to inference.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternative (bookmarks, status_favourited_by) or when a plain timeline call would be preferable. The agent gets a purpose but no routing criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.