Skip to main content
Glama

delete_post

Remove posts from Bluesky Social by providing the post URI. This tool allows authenticated users to delete their own content.

Instructions

Delete a post created by the authenticated user.

Args:
    ctx: MCP context
    uri: URI of the post to delete

Returns:
    Status of the delete operation

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uriYes

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'delete_post' tool. It is registered via the @mcp.tool() decorator and implements the logic to delete a Bluesky post using the authenticated client given its URI.
    @mcp.tool()
    def delete_post(
        ctx: Context,
        uri: str,
    ) -> Dict:
        """Delete a post created by the authenticated user.
    
        Args:
            ctx: MCP context
            uri: URI of the post to delete
    
        Returns:
            Status of the delete operation
        """
        try:
            bluesky_client = get_authenticated_client(ctx)
            # Delete the post
            bluesky_client.delete_post(uri)
    
            return {
                "status": "success",
                "message": "Post deleted successfully",
            }
        except Exception as e:
            error_msg = f"Failed to delete post: {str(e)}"
            return {"status": "error", "message": error_msg}
Behavior3/5

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 correctly identifies this as a destructive operation ('Delete') and specifies the authentication context ('by the authenticated user'), which are crucial behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., removing associated likes/reposts), error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by structured Args and Returns sections. While efficient, the 'ctx: MCP context' parameter documentation adds minimal value since it's boilerplate for MCP tools.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basics (purpose, authentication context, parameter meaning) but lacks important details about return values (what 'Status' means), error handling, and operational constraints. Given the tool's complexity, more completeness would be beneficial.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description adds meaningful context by explaining that 'uri' refers to 'URI of the post to delete'. This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond what the bare schema provides, though it doesn't specify the URI format or provide examples.

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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a post created by the authenticated user'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_post' or 'like_post'. It explicitly identifies the target resource scope (user's own posts) and the destructive nature of the operation.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context about when to use this tool ('Delete a post created by the authenticated user'), establishing the prerequisite of ownership. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it (e.g., for posts by other users) or name alternative tools for related operations like 'unlike_post' or 'unrepost'.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/gwbischof/bluesky-social-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server