One Bluesky post with its stats and direct replies. (1 credit)
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": {
"url": "<url>"
},
"name": "bluesky_post"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Bluesky post URL. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuine behavioral context on top: the response includes the post's stats and its direct replies, and the call costs 1 credit. It does not disclose reply volume or pagination behavior, so it is not fully complete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short clauses with zero filler, and the returned content is front-loaded before the credit cost. The only weakness is that it opens with a noun phrase rather than an action verb, which slightly softens the lead.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully signals what comes back (stats plus direct replies) and the cost. However, it leaves open how many replies are returned, whether nested reply chains are included, and any failure behavior for invalid or private posts.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so "Bluesky post URL." is already documented in the schema. The description adds no URL format, AT-URI, or bsky.app link syntax detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific resource and cardinality: "One Bluesky post with its stats and direct replies," which distinguishes it from the list-oriented siblings bluesky_user_posts and from bluesky_profile. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives, 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: the phrase "One Bluesky post" combined with the required url parameter suggests the agent already has a specific post URL, while bluesky_user_posts covers enumerating a user's posts. There is no explicit "use this when / use X instead" statement or mention of prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.