mastodon-mcp

Verify credentials

whoami

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the live profile for the authenticated Mastodon account. Verify token validity or get the user's handle when they refer to 'me' or 'my'.

Instructions

Authenticate against the instance and return the live profile. Use this to confirm a token still works, or when the user says 'me' or 'my' and you need their handle.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "whoami"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context by noting the result is the 'live' profile and that the tool verifies token validity, which goes beyond the schema and 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?

Two sentences deliver the core purpose and primary use cases with no redundancy. The action is front-loaded and every phrase contributes useful information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple, read-only, zero-required-parameter tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how it behaves. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage of the single optional 'account' parameter with a detailed description. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Authenticate against the instance') and a clear output ('return the live profile'). It differentiates from sibling list_accounts by focusing on the current authenticated identity rather than enumerating connected accounts.

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 description gives explicit conditions for use: confirming a token still works and resolving user references like 'me' or 'my'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, but the stated triggers are concrete and actionable.

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

Deploy Server