mastodon-mcp-server

Status Bookmark

status_bookmark

Idempotent

Save a Mastodon status to your bookmarks using its numeric status ID, so you can find and revisit it later.

Instructions

Bookmark a status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status_id`	Yes	Numeric status 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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations cover idempotency, read-only, and destructive hints, so the safety profile is known. But the description adds nothing beyond the name—no mention of auth requirements, whether the status must exist, or what happens on repeat calls. With annotations, a 2 reflects minimal added value.

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?

Extremely concise—one short sentence—but arguably under-specified for a tool with annotations and output schema. It is front-loaded but lacks any supporting detail.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and annotations, the description needn't explain return values, but it should at least mention usage context or behavioral expectations. It does neither, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter is fully documented as 'Numeric status ID.' The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond the schema baseline.

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 (Bookmark) and resource (a status), clearly distinguishable from sibling status_unbookmark and status_favourite. However, it's terse and doesn't clarify what bookmarking entails versus other interactions.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like status_favourite or status_reblog, nor any prerequisites or context for bookmarking.

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

Deploy Server