status_unfavouriteRemove a favourite from a Mastodon status by passing its numeric status ID. Use it to undo a like or remove a favourite via the MCP server.
Remove a favourite 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 idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and repeat-safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds essentially nothing on top, offering no auth requirements, no behavior when the status is not already favourited, and no outcome semantics.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler, appropriate for a simple toggle. It is efficient but borders on under-specified given the surrounding tool set.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description is nonetheless terse for a mutation tool, leaving error/precondition behavior unstated.
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?
The single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Numeric status ID', 100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema already conveys.
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 (remove) and resource (a favourite from a status), which is unambiguous and pairs naturally with the inverse sibling status_favourite. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from the sibling, which holds it below a 5.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and never references the counterpart status_favourite or the related status_bookmark/status_unbookmark tools. An agent must infer the whole usage scenario from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.