Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AdsMCP

AdsMCP

by skynes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

ads_mastodon_profile_update

Update selected Mastodon profile fields with explicit confirm=true, leaving unspecified fields unchanged.

Instructions

Update selected Mastodon profile fields after explicit confirm=true. Unspecified fields remain unchanged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "ads_mastodon_profile_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNo
fieldsNo
lockedNo
confirmYesExplicitly confirm changing this Mastodon profile
languageNo
indexableNo
account_idNo
discoverableNo
display_nameNo
hide_collectionsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add two valuable traits: an explicit confirmation guard and partial-update semantics ('unspecified fields remain unchanged'). It omits irreversibility, required OAuth scopes, validation failures, and rate limits for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences with zero filler; the partial-update guarantee and the confirm requirement are both front-loaded.

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

Completeness2/5

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

A 10-parameter destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema needs far more: which fields exist, default behavior, auth scope, and failure modes. The description covers only confirmation and partial-update semantics.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 10% (only confirm is documented), so the description must compensate for nine undocumented parameters. It mentions only the fields concept in passing and adds no meaning for note, display_name, locked, indexable, discoverable, hide_collections, language, fields array shape, or account_id.

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 and resource: updating selected Mastodon profile fields. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as ads_mastodon_account_list or ads_mastodon_status, though it never enumerates which fields are updatable.

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 confirm=true gate gives a clear precondition for calling it, and 'selected fields' implies an edit workflow. However, no alternatives are named and no guidance is given on when not to use it versus other Mastodon tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools