resolve_handleConvert a Bluesky handle to its DID (decentralized identifier). Returns the DID for programmatic account lookups.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | Bluesky handle to resolve |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| did | Yes | The decentralized identifier for the handle | |
| handle | Yes | The Bluesky handle |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "did": {
+ "description": "The decentralized identifier for the handle",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "handle": {
+ "description": "The Bluesky handle",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "handle",
+ "did"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "handle": "alice.bsky.social"
+ },
+ {
+ "handle": "jack.bsky.social"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds that it returns a DID but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling or edge cases. This is acceptable given the annotations but not rich.
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 concise sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose. Efficient and clear.
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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is adequate. It explains the transformation and the intended use. It doesn't cover edge cases, but none are essential given the simplicity.
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 coverage is 100% with the parameter 'handle' described as 'Bluesky handle to resolve'. The description doesn't add extra meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses the specific verb 'Convert' and clearly identifies the resource (Bluesky handle) and the output (DID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like resolve_entity by limiting scope to Bluesky handles and explicitly mentioning programmatic account lookups.
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 the tool: 'for programmatic account lookups' provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
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.