List public actors who liked a Bluesky post; paginate results with an optional cursor.
List actors who liked a Bluesky post. Returns public actors who liked a post, with an optional cursor for pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uri | Yes | The post's at:// URI | |
| limit | No | Page size, 1-100 | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes that only public actors are returned and that a cursor enables pagination, which are actionable details. It does not disclose potential authentication requirements or error conditions, but for a simple read operation, this is adequate.
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?
A single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, mentions the return type, and notes pagination. There is zero redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient.
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?
The tool lacks an output schema, so the description should ideally clarify the shape of returned data beyond 'public actors.' It does not specify fields, item format, or any additional response details. For a basic list tool with only three parametershols, this is a partial gap but not critical.
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 each parameter. The description reinforces the cursor's purpose ('optional cursor for pagination') but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. This aligns with the baseline 3 for high coverage.
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 a specific verb-resource pairing: 'List actors who liked a Bluesky post.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bluesky_post_quotes and bluesky_post_reposted_by, which target different engagement types. An agent can immediately identify this as the likes-specific tool.
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 usage: if you need the list of users who liked a post, this is the tool. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks direct comparison to the similar sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate selection based on the action described.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.