timeline_homeRetrieve the authenticated user's Mastodon home timeline, optionally limiting results to a maximum of 40 statuses.
Get the authenticated user's home timeline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of statuses (default 20, max 40). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.5Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / limit / defaultAdded value: +20Output 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 readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The phrase "authenticated user's" lightly implies an auth requirement, but the description adds no rate-limit, pagination, or result-ordering context beyond the annotations.
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?
A single sentence with zero padding, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool, though it is arguably too terse to route among the sibling timeline tools.
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?
With an output schema present and 100% schema coverage plus full annotations, the mechanical calling information is complete. The remaining gap is contextual routing: four sibling timeline tools exist and the description does not say how this one differs, which is the main thing an agent could get wrong here.
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 optional limit parameter is fully documented in the schema (default 20, max 40). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource: getting the home timeline of the authenticated user. That is a clear, distinguishable operation on its face, but it offers no explicit contrast with the closely related siblings timeline_local, timeline_public, and timeline_hashtag, so an agent must infer the home-vs-other distinction.
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 exclusions, and no mention of the alternative timeline tools. The agent gets no signal about when the home timeline is the right choice versus timeline_local, timeline_public, or timeline_hashtag.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.