Skip to main content
Glama

unmute_user

Restore visibility of posts from a muted Bluesky user by removing mute restrictions to see their content again.

Instructions

Unmute a previously muted user.

Args:
    ctx: MCP context
    actor: Handle or DID of the user to unmute

Returns:
    Status of the unmute operation

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actorYes

Implementation Reference

  • The unmute_user tool handler. Decorated with @mcp.tool() for registration. Calls bluesky_client.unmute(actor) after getting authenticated client, returns success/error dict.
    @mcp.tool()
    def unmute_user(
        ctx: Context,
        actor: str,
    ) -> Dict:
        """Unmute a previously muted user.
    
        Args:
            ctx: MCP context
            actor: Handle or DID of the user to unmute
    
        Returns:
            Status of the unmute operation
        """
        try:
            bluesky_client = get_authenticated_client(ctx)
    
            # The unmute method returns a boolean
            success = bluesky_client.unmute(actor)
    
            if success:
                return {
                    "status": "success",
                    "message": f"Unmuted user {actor}",
                }
            else:
                return {
                    "status": "error",
                    "message": "Failed to unmute user",
                }
        except Exception as e:
            error_msg = f"Failed to unmute user: {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 states the operation type ('unmute') but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether this is reversible, rate limits, or what specific 'Status' information is returned. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the 'ctx' parameter documentation is redundant since it's not in the actual input schema. The formatting is clean and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 minimal behavioral disclosure, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Status' means in the return, what errors might occur, or the broader implications of unmuting a user. The description should provide more context 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?

The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema. It explains that 'actor' is the 'Handle or DID of the user to unmute', which provides some context about expected values. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this explanation is adequate but basic, meeting the baseline for minimal parameter documentation.

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 action ('Unmute') and target ('a previously muted user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'mute_user' by specifying the opposite operation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what platform or system this applies to, which prevents a perfect score.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage context by stating 'previously muted user', suggesting this tool should be used to reverse a mute operation. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'unfollow_user' or any prerequisites (e.g., authentication status). The context is implied but not comprehensive.

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