Retrieve a paginated list of accounts a Bluesky user follows by providing their handle or DID; use the cursor to page through results.
Accounts a Bluesky account follows. Returns a page of the accounts a Bluesky account follows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actor | Yes | A handle (e.g. bsky.app) or DID | |
| limit | No | Page size, 1-100 | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from a previous response's cursor field |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions returning a page (implying pagination) but omits whether the data is public, if authentication is required, rate limits, or what fields each account contains. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 short but redundant: the second sentence repeats the first almost verbatim. It is front-loaded with the resource, but the repetition wastes space without adding value.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description should do more to explain the return format (e.g., account fields) and any behavioral constraints. It only says it returns a page of accounts, leaving an agent uncertain about what to expect from the response.
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 all three parameters (actor, limit, cursor) in detail. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, making a baseline 3 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 states a specific action and resource: returning accounts a Bluesky account follows. It distinguishes the action from a generic profile lookup, but does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling bluesky_followers tool, which an agent might confuse.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as bluesky_followers or bluesky_profile. The only implied usage is the required actor parameter, but there is no explicit context or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.