status_favourited_byRetrieve accounts that favourited a Mastodon status by providing its numeric status ID. Use it to identify engaged users or analyze profile interactions with a post.
Get accounts that favourited a status.
| 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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no pagination, no rate-limit, no visibility/permission notes for a lookup that depends on the authenticated account.
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 clean, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. Still, for a read tool whose output set may be paginated and that duplicates a sibling, the description leaves gaps an agent would want filled.
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% (status_id is documented as 'Numeric status ID.'), so the description does not need to carry parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies; the description adds nothing over the schema here.
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+resource+filter: 'Get accounts that favourited a status.' An agent can understand exactly what it returns. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling status_reblogged_by, which would be confusing on a pure text basis.
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 prerequisite (e.g., the status must exist / be visible), and no mention of the obvious alternative status_reblogged_by. Usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.