mastodon-mcp-server

List Delete

list_delete

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a Mastodon list using its numeric ID to remove unwanted timelines and manage your account's lists.

Instructions

Delete a list.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`list_id`	Yes	Numeric list ID.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.5Sep 12, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "result": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "type": "object",
+  "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
+}

First observedv1.0.1Jun 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), so the description need not restate them. It nonetheless adds nothing beyond them, omitting whether deletion cascades to list members, whether it is reversible, or auth requirements, which matters for an openWorld destructive operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence, front-loaded and free of padding. It is terse but not wasteful; the problem is under-specification rather than excess.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

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 no explanation, but for a destructive, open-world mutation the description should convey effects like membership cascade or irreversibility. With one parameter and full schema coverage the bar is met on the structural side, yet the behavioral context for a delete is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single list_id parameter is documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no format or type guidance beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (list), which is clear enough. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like list_accounts_delete or lists_get, leaving the agent to infer that this deletes the whole list container rather than members.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives mentioned. The nearby sibling list_accounts_delete performs a different deletion, yet the description does nothing to distinguish the two, so an agent gets no routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server