mastodon-mcp-server

Status Reblog

status_reblog

Idempotent

Boost a Mastodon status to share it with your followers. Requires the numeric status ID and an optional visibility setting.

Instructions

Reblog (boost) a status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status_id`	Yes	Numeric status ID.
`visibility`	No	Visibility of the reblog: 'public', 'unlisted', or 'private'.	public

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.5Sep 12, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
addedInput schema / properties / visibility / default
```
Added value: +"public"
```

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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the action name, such as authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the operation efficiently and is appropriately sized for a simple action tool.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the low complexity, rich annotations, complete schema descriptions, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete for invoking the tool. It states the operation clearly, though it could mention idempotency or undo behavior, which are either in annotations or handled by a sibling tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (status_id, visibility) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Reblog (boost) a status'), making the core action clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the inverse sibling 'status_unreblog' or other status actions, but the action name is unambiguous.

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?

The description provides no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. It only restates the operation without indicating context, preconditions, or how it relates to siblings like status_unreblog or status_favourite.

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

Deploy Server