Skip to main content
Glama

unfollow_user

Remove a user from your following list by deleting the follow record using its URI.

Instructions

Unfollow a user.

Args:
    ctx: MCP context
    follow_uri: URI of the follow record to delete

Returns:
    Status of the unfollow operation

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
follow_uriYes

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'unfollow_user' tool. It is decorated with @mcp.tool(), which registers it as an MCP tool. The function calls bluesky_client.unfollow(follow_uri) to perform the unfollow operation.
    @mcp.tool()
    def unfollow_user(
        ctx: Context,
        follow_uri: str,
    ) -> Dict:
        """Unfollow a user.
    
        Args:
            ctx: MCP context
            follow_uri: URI of the follow record to delete
    
        Returns:
            Status of the unfollow operation
        """
        try:
            bluesky_client = get_authenticated_client(ctx)
    
            # The unfollow method returns a boolean
            success = bluesky_client.unfollow(follow_uri)
    
            if success:
                return {
                    "status": "success",
                    "message": "Successfully unfollowed user",
                }
            else:
                return {
                    "status": "error",
                    "message": "Failed to unfollow user",
                }
        except Exception as e:
            error_msg = f"Failed to unfollow user: {str(e)}"
            return {"status": "error", "message": error_msg}
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a deletion operation ('delete' in the args explanation) and returns a status, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires authentication, if it's reversible, what happens to related data, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose first. The Args and Returns sections add structure, though 'ctx: MCP context' is redundant boilerplate. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value format (what 'Status' entails), error handling, side effects, or dependencies. For a tool that modifies user relationships, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 explains 'follow_uri' as 'URI of the follow record to delete', adding meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Follow Uri' title. However, it doesn't clarify the URI format, how to obtain it, or examples. With one parameter and some added context, this meets the baseline for minimal compensation.

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 ('Unfollow') and resource ('a user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'mute_user' or 'unmute_user' by focusing on the follow relationship. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'delete_post' or other deletion operations beyond the resource type.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must be following the user first), when-not scenarios, or how it differs from similar tools like 'unmute_user' or 'delete_post'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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