mastodon-mcp-server

Status Unreblog

status_unreblog

Idempotent

Remove a reblog (unboost) of a status on Mastodon to undo a boost.

Instructions

Remove a reblog (unboost) of a status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status_id`	Yes	Numeric status ID.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.5Sep 12, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the agent knows this is a safe, idempotent write. The description adds no additional behavioral context, but with annotations this does not need to repeat or contradict them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, clear sentence with no waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though extremely minimal.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values. Annotations already cover safety. The definition is adequate but on the thin side: it doesn't clarify whether the status_id refers to the original post or the reblog, nor does it mention prerequisites like being the author of the reblog.

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%; the only parameter, status_id, is documented as 'Numeric status ID.' The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Remove a reblog of a status.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool status_reblog by being the inverse operation. It's clear enough, though it could clarify what 'boost' means in context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this is the inverse of status_reblog, which an agent can infer from sibling names, but it doesn't explicitly say when or when not to use it. No exclusions, no guidance on error conditions.

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

Deploy Server