mastodon-mcp-server

Lists Get

lists_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve all Mastodon lists created by the authenticated account. Returns JSON array with list IDs and titles.

Instructions

Get all lists created by the authenticated account.

Returns: str: JSON list of list objects with id and title.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the ownership scoping (only the authenticated account's lists) and the returned fields, which is modest added context beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence states the purpose immediately. The trailing 'Returns:' block is somewhat redundant given an output schema already exists, but it is short and not harmful.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a trivial zero-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description is adequate. The return-value portion is redundant since the output schema covers it, leaving only minor room for improvement in distinguishing siblings.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies since no parameter semantics are needed.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (lists) with clear ownership scope: 'created by the authenticated account.' This distinguishes it from sibling list_accounts (accounts within a list), though it does not explicitly name that sibling to route the agent.

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?

The description only states what the tool does; it gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. authentication requirement is only implied by 'authenticated account'), and never mentions list_accounts or list_create as alternatives. An agent must infer context.

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

Deploy Server