Fetch Bluesky trending topics and suggested feeds, each with a link to its feed.
Bluesky's current trending topics. Returns Bluesky's current trending topics and suggested feeds, each with a link to its feed. This surface is less stable than the rest of this family -- Bluesky may change its shape without notice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden and it does add real behavioral context: it discloses that both trending topics and suggested feeds are returned and warns that this surface is less stable than the rest of the family and may change shape without notice. Auth and rate-limit details are absent, and read-only status is only implied.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the payload description. The opening line and the second sentence restate the same thing, so slight redundancy keeps it from a 5, but overall it is tight.
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 no-param read tool with no output schema, the description explains the return shape (topics and suggested feeds, each with a feed link) and flags the volatility of the surface. It is complete enough to call correctly, missing only stability-adjacent details like caching or freshness.
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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies. No syntax or option details are needed or missing.
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?
Names a specific resource (Bluesky trending topics) and what it returns (trending topics plus suggested feeds), which sets it apart from the profile/post/feed siblings. It stops short of explicitly pointing away from any sibling, so differentiation is by resource type rather than stated contrast.
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 never says when to reach for this tool versus the other bluesky_* tools, nor what conditions make it appropriate. It only describes the payload, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.