follow_request_rejectReject a pending Mastodon follow request using the requester's numeric account ID.
Reject a follow request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | Yes | Numeric account ID of the requester. |
| 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 destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that - no statement about irreversible removal of the request, no side effects, no confirmation semantics - so it earns no credit above the annotation floor.
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 filler, which is structurally clean. It is nevertheless underspecified rather than genuinely concise - there is no second sentence earning its place because no useful detail is provided at all.
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), an output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the destructive/idempotent profile. What is still missing for an agent is routing relative to follow_request_authorize and follow_requests, which is the only real gap for a tool of this complexity.
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% and the single account_id parameter is fully documented in the schema as the requester's numeric ID. The description adds no additional meaning about the identifier, 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?
The sentence names a verb (reject) and a resource (follow request), so the action is not ambiguous. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name/title and offers no differentiation from the sibling follow_request_authorize, which is the tool an agent would plausibly confuse it with.
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 guidance on when to reject versus when to use follow_request_authorize, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that the request must exist or that auth as the target account is required), and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.