AT Protocol MCP Server

report_user

Destructive

Submit a moderation report to flag an account for violating community guidelines or terms of service. Provide violation category and optional explanation.

Instructions

Report a user account that violates community guidelines or terms of service. Submits a moderation report targeting the entire account; moderators review it asynchronously and the report cannot be withdrawn once submitted. Requires authentication (app password). Use report_user to flag an account; use report_content when the violation is limited to a specific post or record identified by AT-URI and CID. Subject to per-tool rate limiting.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`actor`	Yes	Handle (e.g. alice.bsky.social) or DID of the account to report.
`reasonType`	Yes	Category of the violation: "spam" for unsolicited bulk content, "violation" for ToS breach, "misleading" for misinformation, "sexual" for adult content, "rude" for harassment, "other" for anything else.
`reason`	No	Optional free-text explanation of the violation (max 2000 characters). Providing detail helps moderators act faster.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`success`	Yes	Whether the report was submitted successfully.
`message`	Yes	Human-readable result message.
`reportId`	Yes	Numeric identifier of the newly created moderation report (as a string).
`reportDetails`	Yes	Echo of the submitted report parameters.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.6.0Jun 11, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / actor / description

Added value: +"Handle (e.g. alice.bsky.social) or DID of the account to report."

addedInput schema / properties / reason / description

Added value: +"Optional free-text explanation of the violation (max 2000 characters). Providing detail helps moderators act faster."

addedInput schema / properties / reasonType / description

Added value: +"Category of the violation: \"spam\" for unsolicited bulk content, \"violation\" for ToS breach, \"misleading\" for misinformation, \"sexual\" for adult content, \"rude\" for harassment, \"other\" for anything else."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "message": {
+      "description": "Human-readable result message.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "reportDetails": {
+      "description": "Echo of the submitted report parameters.",
+      "properties": {
+        "actor": {
+          "description": "Handle or DID of the reported account.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "reason": {
+          "description": "Optional free-text explanation supplied in the request.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "reasonType": {
+          "description": "The short reason category supplied in the request.",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "actor",
+        "reasonType"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "reportId": {
+      "description": "Numeric identifier of the newly created moderation report (as a string).",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "description": "Whether the report was submitted successfully.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success",
+    "message",
+    "reportId",
+    "reportDetails"
+  ],
+  "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

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses that reports are irreversible ('cannot be withdrawn once submitted'), requires authentication ('app password'), and is subject to rate limiting. Annotations indicate destructive hint, which aligns with the description. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, providing usage context, and differentiating from sibling. No unnecessary words.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the full schema coverage, annotations, and output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, behavioral details, usage guidance, and differentiation. No gaps.

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 the schema already fully explains each parameter. The description does not add new information beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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?

Clearly states the action ('report a user account'), the resource ('account'), and the scope ('entire account'). Differentiates from sibling 'report_content' by specifying that this tool targets accounts, not specific posts.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly provides when to use this tool ('report a user account') and when to use the alternative ('use report_content when the violation is limited to a specific post'). Also notes that reports are reviewed asynchronously and cannot be withdrawn.

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