List followers for a Bluesky account using its handle or DID. Results contain public actor profiles and support cursor pagination; use this to inspect who follows one account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actor | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results are public actor profiles and that cursor pagination is supported, which the annotations do not convey. It stops short of stating default page size or rate limits.
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?
Front-loaded with the core action and resource, then adds format and pagination detail in a single follow-on clause. Efficient, with only mild redundancy around 'account'/'actor'.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described in depth, yet the description still notes the profile content shape and pagination. The only meaningful gap is documentation of the limit parameter.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage the description must compensate. It explains the actor parameter's accepted formats (handle or DID) and documents cursor pagination, but the 'limit' parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of three params undocumented in both schema and description.
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 and resource ('List followers for a Bluesky account') and clarifies the account can be identified by handle or DID. It distinguishes itself implicitly from bluesky_follows (the inverse relationship), but never names that sibling explicitly.
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 closing clause 'use this to inspect who follows one account' gives implied usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance — notably no routing away from bluesky_follows for the 'following' direction.
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.
