AT Protocol MCP Server

unblock_user

DestructiveIdempotent

Restore normal interactions with a user by removing the block record from your account. Use when the account was restricted via block instead of mute.

Instructions

Unblock a previously blocked user to restore normal interactions. Deletes the block record from your repo; if the user was not blocked, the operation returns success=false without error. Requires authentication (app password). Use this instead of unmute_user when the account was restricted via block rather than mute. 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": {
      "actor": "<actor>"
    },
    "name": "unblock_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`actor`	Yes	Handle (e.g. alice.bsky.social) or DID of the account to unblock.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`success`	Yes	True if the block was removed; false if the account was not blocked.
`message`	Yes	Human-readable result message.
`unblockedUser`	Yes	Details of the targeted account.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

Changed2 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 unblock."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "message": {
+      "description": "Human-readable result message.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "description": "True if the block was removed; false if the account was not blocked.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "unblockedUser": {
+      "description": "Details of the targeted account.",
+      "properties": {
+        "actor": {
+          "description": "Handle or DID supplied in the request.",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "actor"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success",
+    "message",
+    "unblockedUser"
+  ],
+  "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

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructive modification and idempotency. The description adds valuable context: deleting the block record, returning success=false if not blocked, requiring app password authentication, and being subject to per-tool rate limiting. 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, no fluff. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, edge-case behavior, usage guidance, and requirements. Highly efficient.

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 low complexity (1 required param, no nested objects), the description covers all necessary aspects: core functionality, alternative tool differentiation, authentication, rate limiting, and edge-case behavior. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be detailed.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema already describes the 'actor' parameter fully (handle or DID). The description reinforces the purpose but does not add new parameter details beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the description elevates it to 4 by contextualizing the parameter within the unblock action.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Unblock a previously blocked user to restore normal interactions.' It also distinguishes from sibling tool unmute_user by specifying the type of restriction (block vs. mute).

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?

The description provides explicit guidance: when to use (instead of unmute_user), behavior on non-blocked users (returns success=false without error), and mentions authentication and rate limiting requirements.

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