trending_statusesRetrieve popular posts currently trending on a Mastodon instance, with an optional limit to control how many statuses are returned.
Get trending statuses on the instance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of statuses (default 20). |
| 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's only additional behavioral signal is the instance-local scope (as opposed to federated), which is modest added value but not a rich disclosure of ranking, recency, or pagination behavior.
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 short sentence with zero filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the guidance an agent would need, so it earns conciseness but not a perfect mark.
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, return-value explanation is not required, and read-only annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a discovery tool the description never clarifies what "trending" means (ranking window, instance-local vs federated origin) or how it differs from trending_tags/trending_links, leaving a small but real gap.
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 limit parameter, so the schema already explains the default and meaning. The description adds nothing about the limit or any cap beyond what the schema states, making 3 the correct 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 gives a clear verb and resource ("Get trending statuses") and scopes it to "the instance", so an agent knows it returns a list of statuses rather than tags or links. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the close siblings trending_tags and trending_links, leaving that differentiation to the tool name alone.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus the related trending_tags/trending_links tools, nor any prerequisite or context about what makes a status "trending". "On the instance" is a scope hint, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.