Fetch Bluesky's current trending topics and suggested feeds. Use bluesky_search_actors to find accounts or bluesky_profile for a known actor's public profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and open-world profile is covered. The description adds the scope of returned content (trending topics plus suggested feeds), but says nothing about freshness, caching, or per-call cost beyond what annotations imply.
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 short sentences, with the capability statement front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place as routing, though its alternatives (actor search, profile lookup) are somewhat tangential to a trending-topics call.
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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description needn't explain return shape. It covers what is fetched and which siblings to use instead; only environmental nuances like refresh cadence or regional scoping are absent.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter syntax the description could add. The description correctly implies the call is parameterless by describing a fixed, global fetch.
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 ('Fetch Bluesky's current trending topics and suggested feeds'), naming the two content types returned. No sibling covers trending topics, and the description explicitly steers the account/profile use cases to bluesky_search_actors and bluesky_profile, so the boundary is unambiguous.
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 second sentence gives clear routing for adjacent needs (searching accounts, viewing a known actor's profile), which implicitly tells the agent when this tool is not the right pick. It does not state prerequisites or exclusions for the trending-topics task itself, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.
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.
