mastodon-mcp-server

Status Favourite

status_favourite

Idempotent

Favourite a Mastodon status by its ID to like or save posts for later reference and engagement.

Instructions

Favourite (like) 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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. Description adds the parenthetical synonym '(like)' but no new behavioral context about idempotency effect, errors (already-favourited), or auth. Credit limited as annotations carry most of the burden.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single four-word sentence, front-loaded and free of noise. Ideal size for a simple action.

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

Completeness3/5

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 needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a one-param mutation, the description is minimally sufficient. It could note the sibling status_unfavourite or idempotent behavior, but nothing essential is missing.

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%: status_id is documented as 'Numeric status ID.' The description adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: 'Favourite (like) a status.' Clear what it does and distinguishes the action from siblings like status_unfavourite and status_reblog via the parenthetical synonym. It does not, however, name or differentiate against the closely related status_reblog (also a write interaction) beyond action name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: this is the counterpart of status_unfavourite which is a sibling. No explicit when-to-use/when-not or prerequisites. Adequate minimum viability for a simple toggle action.

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

Deploy Server