Skip to main content
Glama

repost

Share another user's Bluesky post to your own feed using the post's URI and CID identifiers.

Instructions

Repost another user's post.

Args:
    ctx: MCP context
    uri: URI of the post to repost
    cid: CID of the post to repost

Returns:
    Status of the repost operation

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uriYes
cidYes

Implementation Reference

  • Implementation of the 'repost' tool handler. Uses the atproto Client's repost method to repost a post given its URI and CID, returning success with repost_uri and repost_cid or error.
    @mcp.tool()
    def repost(
        ctx: Context,
        uri: str,
        cid: str,
    ) -> Dict:
        """Repost another user's post.
    
        Args:
            ctx: MCP context
            uri: URI of the post to repost
            cid: CID of the post to repost
    
        Returns:
            Status of the repost operation
        """
        try:
            bluesky_client = get_authenticated_client(ctx)
            repost_response = bluesky_client.repost(uri, cid)
            return {
                "status": "success",
                "message": "Post reposted successfully",
                "repost_uri": repost_response.uri,
                "repost_cid": repost_response.cid,
            }
        except Exception as e:
            error_msg = f"Failed to repost: {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 the tool 'reposts' content, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether this creates notifications, rate limits, or what happens if the same post is reposted multiple times. The return value description ('Status of the repost operation') is vague.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return sections. However, the 'ctx: MCP context' parameter documentation adds no value since this is standard boilerplate, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain authentication requirements, error conditions, what the 'status' return contains, or how this operation affects the social graph compared to sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists both parameters (uri and cid) and indicates they're for 'the post to repost,' providing basic semantic context. However, it doesn't explain what format these identifiers should be in, whether they're interchangeable, or if both are always required together.

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 verb ('repost') and resource ('another user's post'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'unrepost' or explain how this differs from simply sharing content through other means.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_post' (for original posts) or 'unrepost' (to undo). The description only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might exist.

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