list_accountsRetrieve accounts from a specific Mastodon list by list ID to review or manage list members.
Get accounts in a specific list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of accounts (default 40). | |
| list_id | Yes | Numeric list ID. |
| 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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those hints: no pagination behavior, no visibility/permission notes, no indication of what happens for an empty or invalid list. With an output schema present, return-shape explanation is not required, but the description still contributes essentially nothing.
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 no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to be maximally useful given the missing usage guidance.
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 (2 params, 1 required), the schema is fully described, annotations cover the safety profile, and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain returns. It is still minimally adequate only: an agent gets no guidance on when this is the right tool versus its list_accounts_* siblings.
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%, so both parameters (limit, list_id) are already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, such as the format or origin of list_id.
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 (accounts in a specific list), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings that also touch list membership, such as list_accounts_add and list_accounts_delete, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that the list must exist or belong to the caller), and names no alternative tool. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read counterpart to list_accounts_add/list_accounts_delete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.