search_bluesky_usersSearch Bluesky users by keyword, matching handles, display names and bios. Returns handle, display name, DID, bio, verification status, profile picture and join date. Up to 50 users per page. Billed $0.003 per page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pages | No | Number of pages to fetch, 1-20 (default: 1). Each page returns up to 50 users; you are billed per page returned. | |
| query | Yes | Search keyword (max 500 characters) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the returned field set, a 50-users-per-page cap, and a $0.003-per-page billing cost, which materially affects how an agent should size a call.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the search scope and then the return shape and cost. No filler, and the billing constraint is placed where it will be read before invoking.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the return-value burden by enumerating handle, display name, DID, bio, verification status, picture and join date. Combined with the page cap and pricing, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (query, pages) are already documented with limits and the per-page billing note. The description repeats 'up to 50 users per page' but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, 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?
States a specific verb (search) and resource (Bluesky users) plus the exact match fields (handles, display names, bios), which clearly separates it from the sibling search_bluesky that covers posts. An agent can route correctly without opening the schema.
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?
The description implies when to use it (keyword lookup of user accounts) but names no alternatives and gives no when-not-to-use guidance, e.g. versus search_bluesky or bluesky_user_profile. Usage is inferable but not stated.
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.