mutesRetrieve accounts muted by the authenticated account to review or manage your mute list, with an optional limit on the number of results.
Get accounts muted by 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds only the scope constraint ('by the authenticated account'), not pagination or ordering behavior, so with annotations carrying the load a 3 is appropriate.
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 short sentence with zero padding, front-loaded and directly to the point.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is that the description doesn't mention pagination or how to interpret results, which is minor but leaves the definition minimally complete.
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 coverage is 100% with the 'limit' parameter's purpose and default fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is baseline-appropriate when the schema does the work.
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 and resource: retrieve accounts muted by the authenticated account. Clear and unambiguous, though it doesn't distinguish itself explicitly from siblings like account_relationships or blocks, which serve analogous list purposes.
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 or alternatives named. An agent must infer that this is the muted-accounts counterpart to the 'blocks' sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.