Bluesky MCP Server

get-profile

Retrieve a user's Bluesky profile by handle, delivering account details for analysis and integration.

Instructions

Get a user's profile from Bluesky

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": {
      "handle": "<handle>"
    },
    "name": "get-profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`handle`	Yes	The handle of the user (e.g., alice.bsky.social)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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 basic action ('Get a user's profile') but does not mention return format, authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, and every word is useful. There is no wasted or redundant text.

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 straightforward getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It tells the user what the tool does, and the schema documents the parameter. However, it lacks detail about what exactly is included in the profile and when to prefer this over sibling tools, leaving some 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?

The schema description for 'handle' is clear and complete, covering 100% of parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and the schema already provides sufficient semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('user's profile') with a specified context ('from Bluesky'). It is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like get-my-handle-and-did or search-people, though it does not explicitly call out those alternatives.

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. It does not mention that it is preferred for fetching a specific profile by handle, nor does it exclude use cases like searching for people. The description offers no selection context.

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