Returns public actors who liked a post, with an optional cursor for pagination. uri: The post's at:// URI. Use bluesky_post_reposted_by to list actors who reposted a Bluesky post.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uri | Yes | The post's at:// URI | |
| limit | No | Page size, 1-100 | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor |
| 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.
Input schema / properties / cursor / descriptionAdded value: +"Pagination cursor"Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Page size, 1-100"Input schema / properties / uri / descriptionAdded value: +"The post's at:// URI"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'public actors' scope and mentions cursor-based pagination, but the pagination detail largely restates the schema's cursor field, so net added behavioral context is modest.
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 primary purpose before the sibling pointer. Slight redundancy in re-stating the uri parameter already covered by the schema, but otherwise tight.
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 explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. What remains for an agent to call this correctly (what it returns, the required uri, the sibling alternative) is all present.
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%, so the schema already documents uri, limit, and cursor. The description restates uri ('The post's at:// URI') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Returns public actors who liked a post.' It also names the sibling tool it is distinct from (bluesky_post_reposted_by), so an agent can route between the two like/repost endpoints without opening either 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?
Explicitly directs the agent to bluesky_post_reposted_by for the repost case, which is the main ambiguity. However it gives no positive when-to-use context or other exclusions (e.g., quotes or thread), so it stops short of full routing guidance.
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.