Bluesky MCP Server

like-post

Like a Bluesky post by providing its URI. This enables MCP-connected tools to engage with content by marking posts as liked.

Instructions

Like a post on 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": {
      "uri": "<uri>"
    },
    "name": "like-post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`uri`	Yes	The URI of the post to like

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral implications. It states only the action ('Like a post') without mentioning side effects, idempotency, permissions, or return behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 five-word sentence, front-loaded and free of any filler. Every word earns its place, making it maximally concise.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so minimal description is acceptable. However, it does not explain return values, failure modes, or whether the like is reversible, leaving some ambiguity for a complete invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% and the sole parameter 'uri' is already described in the schema as 'The URI of the post to like'. The tool description adds no additional meaning or syntax details, 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 'Like a post on Bluesky' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like 'repost' and 'create-post'. It fully conveys the tool's purpose.

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 like 'repost' or 'create-post'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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