timeline_localRetrieve the public timeline of a Mastodon instance to view recent local posts. Control result count with the optional limit parameter.
Get the local (instance) public 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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the local-instance scope and says nothing about pagination, authentication, or return behavior. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is adequate but thin.
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 filler. It directly states the timeline type and instance scope, and every word earns its place.
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 simple read-only timeline endpoint with one fully documented parameter, an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description provides the essential scope. It could still mention sibling timelines for routing clarity, but nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 coverage is 100%, and the sole limit parameter is fully documented in the schema with its default of 20 and maximum of 40. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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: 'Get the local (instance) public timeline.' The parenthetical clarifies the local-instance scope, which helps separate it from the broader public timeline concept. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools such as timeline_public or timeline_home, so it falls short of the top score.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative timelines to consider. An agent must infer that this is for local instance posts and that timeline_public or timeline_home are the alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.