AT Protocol MCP Server

remove_from_list

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a user from an existing Bluesky list by providing the list URI and the user's handle or DID. Authenticated action for managing list membership.

Instructions

Remove a user from an existing list. Requires authentication (app password). Deletes the listitem record from the authenticated user's repository; the actor's handle is resolved to a DID and the full list is paged through to locate the record. Use add_to_list to re-add a member or get_list to inspect current members. Subject to per-tool rate limiting.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "listUri": "<listUri>",
      "actor": "<actor>"
    },
    "name": "remove_from_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`listUri`	Yes	AT-URI of the target list (at://did/app.bsky.graph.list/rkey).
`actor`	Yes	Handle (e.g. alice.bsky.social) or DID of the user to remove from the list.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`success`	Yes	Whether the user was removed. False when the user was not in the list, or when the list was too large to scan fully (see message).
`message`	Yes	Human-readable result message.
`removedFrom`	Yes	Identifies the list and actor involved in the operation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.2Jun 23, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.6.0Jun 11, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / actor / description

Added value: +"Handle (e.g. alice.bsky.social) or DID of the user to remove from the list."

addedInput schema / properties / listUri / description

Added value: +"AT-URI of the target list (at://did/app.bsky.graph.list/rkey)."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "message": {
+      "description": "Human-readable result message.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "removedFrom": {
+      "description": "Identifies the list and actor involved in the operation.",
+      "properties": {
+        "actor": {
+          "description": "Handle or DID of the user that was removed.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "listUri": {
+          "description": "AT-URI of the list.",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "listUri",
+        "actor"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "description": "Whether the user was removed. False when the user was not in the list, or when the list was too large to scan fully (see message).",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success",
+    "message",
+    "removedFrom"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0Jun 9, 2026
- removedInput schema / $schema
```
Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
```
First observedv0.2.1Jun 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), the description explains the internal process: resolving the handle to a DID, paging through the list, and deleting the record. It also mentions authentication and rate limiting, adding valuable behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the process, then guidance. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, authentication, process, alternatives, and rate limiting. It might lack error scenarios, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a moderately complex tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond what is in the schema; it focuses on the process. Thus, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description begins with 'Remove a user from an existing list,' which clearly states the verb and resource. It further distinguishes from siblings by mentioning add_to_list and get_list as alternatives, providing differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly advises using add_to_list to re-add a member and get_list to inspect current members, offering clear context for when to use alternatives. It implies authentication and rate limiting but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.