Retrieve a Bluesky account's public profile by handle or DID: display name, bio, avatar/banner images, and follower, following, and post counts.
A Bluesky account's full public profile. Returns a Bluesky account's public profile: display name, description, avatar/banner images, and follower/follows/posts counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actor | Yes | A handle (e.g. bsky.app) or DID (e.g. did:plc:z72i7hdynmk6r22z27h6tvur) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that only 'public' profile data is returned, which is useful, but says nothing about authentication needs, behavior for nonexistent/suspended actors, rate limits, or caching. For a mutation-free read tool this is thin but not misleading.
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 sentences where the second largely restates the first ('A Bluesky account's full public profile' vs 'Returns a Bluesky account's public profile'), so the field enumeration is the only value-adding content. Front-loaded but slightly redundant.
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?
For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately conveys what is retrieved. It does not explain error/empty behavior, but nothing essential for invoking the tool is missing.
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%, and the schema itself gives handle and DID formats with examples, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the 'actor' parameter beyond what the schema already documents.
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 a Bluesky account's public profile') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can tell it apart from bluesky_followers, bluesky_follows, or bluesky_author_feed. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not, but the 'full profile' scope is distinctive enough to route correctly.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite information, and no mention of alternatives like bluesky_search_actors (to find an actor) or the feed/follows tools. The agent must infer that this is the tool for profile lookup purely from the name and field list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.