mastodon-mcp

Move a scheduled status

reschedule_status

Reschedule a scheduled status to a new publish time. Provide the status ID and the desired ISO 8601 timestamp, with a minimum of five minutes ahead.

Instructions

Change when a scheduled status will publish. Minimum five minutes ahead.

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>",
      "scheduled_at": "<scheduled_at>"
    },
    "name": "reschedule_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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.
`scheduled_at`	Yes	New ISO 8601 time.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already signal a mutating, non-destructive operation. The description adds the meaningful constraint 'Minimum five minutes ahead,' which is a behavioral trait not captured by annotations or schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the key constraint is stated in minimal words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple mutation tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description plus annotations and schema cover the essentials: what to change, what identifies the target, and a key validation rule. It could mention the response or error cases, but those are not critical for invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 67%, and the description adds important meaning to scheduled_at by imposing a minimum-five-minutes-ahead constraint beyond 'New ISO 8601 time.' The purpose also clarifies that id refers to a scheduled status, compensating for its bare schema entry.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('when a scheduled status will publish'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It naturally distinguishes this from siblings like cancel_scheduled_status or list_scheduled_statuses.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The phrase 'Change when a scheduled status will publish' provides clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly contrast it with cancel_scheduled_status or define exclusions, but the intended use case is evident.

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

Deploy Server