mastodon-mcp

Favourite a status

favourite_status

Idempotent

Mark a Mastodon status as a favourite using its ID to save it to your likes.

Instructions

Favourite a status.

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": "favourite_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The status id.
`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

C2.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already convey idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond repeating the action. It does not mention side effects, error conditions, or account-actor behavior, though it does not contradict 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.

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short, but the single sentence merely repeats the title and therefore provides no informative content. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness, unlike a terse but informative summary.

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?

For a simple mutating tool with no output schema, the description should at least clarify what happens when the status is favourited or what is returned. It does neither. The agent must rely entirely on the schema and annotations, which leaves meaningful gaps around expected outcomes and edge cases.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (id and account) already have meaningful descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema carries the load adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Favourite a status.' is a verbatim restatement of the title, so it is a tautology rather than an independent explanation. It names the resource and action but does nothing to distinguish it from close siblings like bookmark_status or unfavourite_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bookmark_status or unfavourite_status. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual cues to help an agent decide between similar status-affecting tools.

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

Deploy Server