Search Bluesky accounts by display name, handle, or profile description to find matching profiles. Paginate results using limit and cursor.
Search Bluesky accounts. Returns Bluesky accounts matching a query against display name, handle, and profile description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search text | |
| 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 discloses the searched fields but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, rate limits, or authentication requirements — notable gaps for a search tool that exposes limit/cursor parameters.
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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the matching behavior immediately following.
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 output schema and no annotations, the description should carry more weight than it does. It omits pagination semantics and return shape (beyond 'returns accounts'), leaving the agent to infer how to page through results from the cursor parameter alone.
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 coverage is 100%, so q, limit, and cursor are already documented in the schema. The description adds the useful detail that the query matches against display name, handle, and profile description, but gives no extra syntax or formatting guidance for the parameters. Baseline 3 applies.
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 (search) and resource (Bluesky accounts) and clarifies the match surface: display name, handle, and profile description. This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like bluesky_profile (single lookup) or bluesky_follows (relationship listing).
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 word 'Search' plus 'matching a query' implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over bluesky_profile or other Bluesky account-related tools, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.