follow_requestsFetch pending requests to follow the authenticated Mastodon account.
Get pending follow requests for the authenticated account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results (default 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: +40Output 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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes the meaningful qualifiers "pending" and "for the authenticated account" (i.e., not an arbitrary account), but adds nothing on ordering, pagination, or result behavior.
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 the resource and scope stated immediately and zero filler. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema and nothing is left dangling.
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 one-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers what it returns and whose requests they are, which is sufficient. The only omission is any hint about ordering or how requests relate to the authorize/reject siblings, which is minor given the output schema exists.
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 are no parameters to explain, only 'limit', which the schema already documents at 100% coverage with a default of 40. The description adds no syntax, range, or paging semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 description names a specific verb and resource ("Get pending follow requests") and scopes it to the authenticated account, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not name the sibling tools that act on these requests (follow_request_authorize, follow_request_reject), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 is the read step that precedes follow_request_authorize or follow_request_reject when reviewing pending requests. However, the description never states when to call it versus those siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.