Bluesky MCP Server

create-list

Create a new Bluesky list for curating custom feeds or moderating content with mute/block lists.

Instructions

Create a new list on Bluesky (curate list or moderation list)

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "purpose": "<purpose>"
    },
    "name": "create-list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	The name of the list
`purpose`	Yes	List purpose: 'curate' for custom feeds, 'moderation' for mute/block lists
`description`	No	Optional description for the list

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation ('create a new list') and the two types; it does not mention permissions, reversibility, response format, or any side effects beyond the creation. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action ('Create a new list on Bluesky') and then adds a clarifying parenthetical for the two list types. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a simple create tool with full parameter coverage, the description is mostly sufficient. It clearly states the purpose and the two list types. However, the absence of an output schema means a brief mention of the return value (e.g., the created list) would improve completeness, but the current description is not grossly inadequate.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, including the enum values for purpose. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already covers, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'create' with the resource 'list', names the platform 'Bluesky', and explicitly clarifies the two list types (curate or moderation). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-lists, add-to-list, and delete-list.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage by naming the two purposes ('curate list or moderation list'), giving some context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools like add-to-list or delete-list, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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