mastodon-mcp

Cancel a scheduled status

cancel_scheduled_status

Cancel a scheduled Mastodon post before it publishes. Provide the status ID to remove it from the queue.

Instructions

Cancel a status that was scheduled but has not published.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "cancel_scheduled_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`account`	No	Which connected account to act as. Matches a full handle (alice@example.social), a bare username (alice), or an instance (example.social). Defaults to the first connected account. Call list_accounts to see them.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already mark the operation as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and open-world, so the description only needs to add context; it adds the key precondition that the status must not have published. It does not describe error behavior or side effects, but that is acceptable for a simple cancel operation.

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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition of schema fields. Every word contributes to the action and the boundary condition.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation with annotations and a detailed account field, the description is mostly sufficient; the missing id semantics and the lack of a pointer to list_scheduled_statuses are the main gaps. No output schema exists, so not documenting return values is not a penalty here.

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?

The account parameter is well documented in the schema, but the required id parameter has no description and the tool description never states that id is the scheduled-status identifier from list_scheduled_statuses. At 50% schema coverage, the description does not compensate for the gap.

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 clear verb and resource ('Cancel a status that was scheduled') and adds the scope qualifier 'has not published,' which separates it from deleting a published status. It does not name or explicitly contrast sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 the intended use: for a scheduled status that has not yet published, and its wording excludes already-published statuses. It does not explicitly tell the agent when to prefer this over reschedule_status or to obtain the id via list_scheduled_statuses.

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

Deploy Server