status_unbookmarkRemove a bookmark from a Mastodon status using its numeric ID. Deletes the saved bookmark so the status is no longer stored in your bookmarks list.
Remove a bookmark from 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 the full behavioral profile: readOnlyHint=false (a mutation), idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description repeats the mutating action but adds nothing beyond the annotations — e.g., no note that deleting a non-existent bookmark is a no-op, despite the idempotency hint.
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 sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the action. It is appropriately sized for a simple single-parameter operation, though it is at the sparse end of usable.
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 one-parameter mutation with a full output schema and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is the absence of any reference to the inverse status_bookmark tool or error/no-op behavior.
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% for the single status_id parameter, so the schema fully documents the argument. The description adds no format or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a bookmark from a status.' This clearly identifies the action and the object. However, it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from the obvious inverse sibling status_bookmark, so an agent gets the action but no routing signal.
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 mention of the inverse status_bookmark tool, and no note on preconditions (e.g., whether the status must currently be bookmarked). The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.