Bluesky MCP Server

get-user-posts

Retrieve posts from any Bluesky user by handle or DID. Specify the number of posts to fetch or view posts within a set number of hours.

Instructions

Fetch posts from a specific user

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	Yes	Whether count represents number of posts or hours to look back
`user`	Yes	The handle or DID of the user (e.g., alice.bsky.social)
`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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only says 'fetch posts' without explicitly stating read-only behavior, permission requirements, rate limits, or output format. The verb 'fetch' implies a read, but this is not fully disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. While it is very brief, it is not overly verbose. However, it lacks any structured sections or additional context that might be expected for a tool with three required parameters.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the 'type' parameter (posts vs hours), which is critical to understanding count semantics, nor does it clarify output or handle resolution (handle vs DID). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to reason about correct usage.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter (user, count, type) having a descriptive definition. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, 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 'Fetch posts from a specific user' clearly identifies the action (fetch), resource (posts), and scope (specific user). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get-timeline-posts or get-feed-posts by emphasizing the 'specific user' target.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-feed-posts, get-list-posts, or search-posts. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are provided.

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