Bluesky MCP Server

get-feed-posts

Fetch posts from a Bluesky feed by URI, specifying either the number of posts or the hours to look back.

Instructions

Fetch posts from a specified feed

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": {
      "feed": "<feed>",
      "count": "<count>",
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "get-feed-posts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`feed`	Yes	The URI of the feed to fetch posts from (e.g., at://did:plc:abcdef/app.bsky.feed.generator/whats-hot)
`type`	Yes	Whether count represents number of posts or hours to look back
`count`	Yes	Number of posts to fetch or hours to look back

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'fetch posts' and omits details such as pagination, sorting, rate limits, or return format. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the simple operation.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Although the schema fully documents parameters, the lack of an output schema means the description should clarify what the tool returns. The description is too terse and does not mention response structure, which could leave an agent uncertain about expected output.

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 descriptions for all three parameters (feed, type, count) with full coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool fetches posts from a specified feed, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get-user-posts or get-liked-posts by identifying the feed as the source.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-timeline-posts or get-list-posts. The description only states the basic function without any context or exclusions.

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