list_accounts_deleteRemove accounts from a Mastodon list by providing list ID and account IDs. Manage list membership and curate your timeline.
Remove accounts from a list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list_id | Yes | Numeric list ID. | |
| account_ids | Yes | List of numeric account IDs to remove. |
| 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, and readOnlyHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond those annotations - no note on permissions/ownership required, reversibility, or error behavior when an account isn't in the list - so it earns little extra credit.
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 efficient sentence with the verb front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though it is arguably too terse to carry its share of the semantic load.
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?
Annotations cover the destructive/idempotent profile, the output schema covers return values, and the schema fully documents both params. The description is adequate given that structured coverage, but adds no routing or edge-case context for a mutation on a sibling-rich list API.
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%: both list_id and account_ids are documented, including that account_ids accepts an array of numeric IDs. The description neither repeats nor extends this, so 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?
States a specific verb (remove) and resource (accounts from a list), which is clear enough to distinguish from the sibling list_accounts_add by contrast. However it does not name that alternative or otherwise anchor itself within the list_* family explicitly.
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 prerequisites, and no mention of list_accounts_add as the inverse operation. The agent must infer that this is the removal counterpart to list_accounts_add from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.