get_feedGet posts from a Bluesky feed (e.g., "discover", "what's-hot"). Returns recent posts with authors, timestamps, and engagement counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of posts (1-100, default 20) | |
| feed_uri | No | AT URI of the feed generator (default: whats-hot) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| posts | Yes | Posts from the feed |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesPrevious value: -[
- {
- "feed_uri": "at://did:plc:z72i7hdynmk6r22z27h6tvvrjmpeevvh/app.bsky.feed.generator/whats-hot"
- },
- {
- "limit": 30
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "feed_uri": "whatshot"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 30
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "posts": {
+ "description": "Posts from the feed",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "author": {
+ "description": "Author's display name or handle",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "createdAt": {
+ "description": "ISO timestamp of post creation",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "handle": {
+ "description": "Author's handle",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "likes": {
+ "description": "Number of likes",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "replies": {
+ "description": "Number of replies",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "reposts": {
+ "description": "Number of reposts",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "text": {
+ "description": "Post content text",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "uri": {
+ "description": "AT URI of the post",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "uri",
+ "author",
+ "handle",
+ "text",
+ "createdAt",
+ "likes",
+ "reposts",
+ "replies"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "posts"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "feed_uri": "at://did:plc:z72i7hdynmk6r22z27h6tvvrjmpeevvh/app.bsky.feed.generator/whats-hot"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 30
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds return content details (authors, timestamps, engagement counts) and feed examples, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling. This adds moderate value beyond annotations.
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?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by return content. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
With simple tool semantics, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, return content, and feed examples, though it lacks explicit error cases or behavior for invalid feeds. The minor inconsistency in the example feed_uri is a small gap.
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 covers both parameters (limit, feed_uri) with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds example feed_uri values, though with slight inconsistency (e.g., 'whatshot' vs 'whats-hot'). It does not significantly clarify parameter semantics beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool gets posts from a Bluesky feed, with specific examples like 'discover' and 'what's-hot'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_posts by specifying the feed context.
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 usage for retrieving feed content but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks comparison with similar tools like get_posts or search_posts, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
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.