status_deleteDelete a Mastodon status posted by the authenticated account by providing its numeric status ID. This removes an existing post from any Mastodon instance.
Delete a status posted by the authenticated account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status_id | Yes | Numeric ID of the status to delete. |
| 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 destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the ownership restriction, but does not say whether deletion is permanent/irreversible or what error occurs when the status isn't the caller's. A modest addition over annotations.
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?
One short sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized, though it stops short of using the remaining space for usage or behavioral detail.
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?
For a single-parameter destructive tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essentials (what it does, whose status). It omits error/permission behavior and sibling disambiguation, but does not leave an agent unable to call the tool.
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% with a single documented parameter (status_id, described as the numeric ID), so the schema already carries the full parameter burden. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, which is the expected baseline.
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?
The description names a specific verb and resource ('Delete a status') and adds a meaningful scope constraint ('posted by the authenticated account'), which separates it from write siblings like status_post or status_reblog. It does not explicitly differentiate against the other destructive siblings (status_unfavourite, status_unbookmark), but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
The ownership constraint ('posted by the authenticated account') implicitly tells the agent when this tool is applicable, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no statement of what happens if the status is not owned by the account. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.