status_reblogged_byGet accounts that reblogged a specific Mastodon status by providing its numeric status ID.
Get accounts that reblogged 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations—such as pagination behavior or authentication needs—but it does not contradict them. A baseline 3 is appropriate for a simple read tool with complete annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. For a simple lookup tool, this is appropriately sized and direct.
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?
Given the low complexity, complete schema description, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the one-sentence description is largely sufficient. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit usage guidance versus sibling tools, which keeps it from a 5.
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%, and the single status_id parameter is already documented as a numeric status ID. The description adds no additional parameter meaning or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is 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?
The description gives a clear verb and resource: 'Get accounts that reblogged a status.' This distinguishes it from the related action tools like status_reblog and the analogous status_favourited_by by specifying the reblog relationship. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative siblings, so it is strong but not fully differentiated.
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?
Usage is implicitly clear: call this when you need the accounts that reblogged a given status. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives such as status_favourited_by or the reblog/unreblog actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.