Skip to main content
Glama

get_likes

Retrieve likes for a Bluesky Social post by providing its URI, with options to limit results and paginate through responses.

Instructions

Get likes for a post.

Args:
    ctx: MCP context
    uri: URI of the post to get likes for
    cid: Optional CID of the post (not strictly required)
    limit: Maximum number of results to return (1-100)
    cursor: Optional pagination cursor

Returns:
    List of likes for the post

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uriYes
cidNo
limitNo
cursorNo

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'get_likes' tool. It is registered via the @mcp.tool() decorator and implements the logic to retrieve likes for a specified post using the Bluesky client, handling parameters like uri, limit, and cursor.
    @mcp.tool()
    def get_likes(
        ctx: Context,
        uri: str,
        cid: Optional[str] = None,
        limit: Union[int, str] = 50,
        cursor: Optional[str] = None,
    ) -> Dict:
        """Get likes for a post.
    
        Args:
            ctx: MCP context
            uri: URI of the post to get likes for
            cid: Optional CID of the post (not strictly required)
            limit: Maximum number of results to return (1-100)
            cursor: Optional pagination cursor
    
        Returns:
            List of likes for the post
        """
        try:
            bluesky_client = get_authenticated_client(ctx)
            params = {"uri": uri, "limit": max(1, min(100, limit))}
            if cursor:
                params["cursor"] = cursor
    
            likes_response = bluesky_client.get_likes(**params)
            likes_data = likes_response.dict()
    
            return {"status": "success", "likes": likes_data}
        except Exception as e:
            error_msg = f"Failed to get likes: {str(e)}"
            return {"status": "error", "message": error_msg}
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination via 'cursor' and a 'limit' parameter, which is helpful. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'get' implies it).

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loads the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place, though the 'ctx' parameter explanation could be more specific about its role. The structure is efficient but not perfectly minimal.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context. It explains what the tool returns ('List of likes for the post') but doesn't describe the response format, error handling, or authentication requirements. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, it's adequate but has clear gaps.

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, the description compensates well by explaining all 4 parameters in the Args section. It clarifies that 'uri' is required, 'cid' is optional, 'limit' has a range (1-100), and 'cursor' enables pagination. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 'Get likes for a post' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_post' or 'get_reposted_by' by focusing specifically on likes. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'get_reposted_by' which might have overlapping use cases.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate compared to other data retrieval tools in the sibling list like 'get_post' or 'get_reposted_by', nor any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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