status_contextFetch a Mastodon status's ancestors and descendants to reconstruct its conversation thread using a numeric status ID.
Get ancestors and descendants of a status (thread context).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status_id | Yes | Numeric status ID. |
| 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that the result spans both ancestors and descendants (a thread, not just one direction), but discloses nothing about pagination, depth limits, or handling of deleted parent posts.
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 front-loaded sentence with the key scope ('ancestors and descendants') stated first and a compact clarifying parenthetical. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs to be skimmed past.
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-value explanation is unnecessary, and rich annotations cover the safety profile; the description plus those structured fields give an agent enough to call this correctly. The only meaningful gap is the absence of routing guidance versus status_get and other thread-adjacent status tools.
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% ('Numeric status ID.'), so the parameter is fully documented in structured data. The description restates only that a status is involved and adds no format, validation, or ID-sourcing detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 ('Get') and resource ('ancestors and descendants of a status') and clarifies scope with '(thread context)', which distinguishes it from a plain status fetch like status_get. However, it never names status_get or any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of related tools such as status_get, and no statement of prerequisites. The parenthetical '(thread context)' only hints at the scenario; an agent must infer that this is the tool for reconstructing a reply thread.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.