Bluesky MCP Server

get-post-likes

Retrieve the list of users who liked a specific Bluesky post by providing its URI. Optionally set a limit to control the number of likes returned.

Instructions

Get information about users who have liked a specific post

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": {
      "uri": "<uri>"
    },
    "name": "get-post-likes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`uri`	Yes	The URI of the post to get likes for (e.g., at://did:plc:abcdef/app.bsky.feed.post/123)
`limit`	No	Maximum number of likes to fetch (1-100)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and does not describe what 'information about users' includes, whether authentication is required, error handling, or any other behavioral traits. For a read tool, the absence of these details limits transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently and is appropriately concise for a simple read operation.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is minimal but serviceable. However, the lack of an output schema and absence of any detail about the return payload or pagination behavior leaves it somewhat incomplete. Given the complexity, a slightly richer description would improve completeness.

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 has 100% coverage, describing both 'uri' and 'limit' with examples and ranges. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the 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's function: retrieving information about users who liked a specific post. It uses a specific verb and resource ('get information about users', 'specific post') and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get-liked-posts' which focus on posts liked by a user, not likes on a post.

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 purpose is clear enough that usage is implied (when you need to see who liked a post). However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, such as using 'get-liked-posts' to see a user's liked posts. The description lacks any exclusions or alternative tool references.

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