Skip to main content
Glama

unrepost

Remove a repost from your Bluesky Social feed to manage your content and interactions.

Instructions

Remove a repost of another user's post.

Args:
    ctx: MCP context
    repost_uri: URI of the repost to remove

Returns:
    Status of the unrepost operation

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repost_uriYes

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'unrepost' tool. It takes a repost_uri, authenticates the Bluesky client, calls bluesky_client.unrepost(repost_uri), and returns success or error status.
    @mcp.tool()
    def unrepost(
        ctx: Context,
        repost_uri: str,
    ) -> Dict:
        """Remove a repost of another user's post.
    
        Args:
            ctx: MCP context
            repost_uri: URI of the repost to remove
    
        Returns:
            Status of the unrepost operation
        """
        try:
            bluesky_client = get_authenticated_client(ctx)
            success = bluesky_client.unrepost(repost_uri)
    
            if success:
                return {
                    "status": "success",
                    "message": "Repost removed successfully",
                }
            else:
                return {
                    "status": "error",
                    "message": "Failed to remove repost",
                }
        except Exception as e:
            error_msg = f"Failed to unrepost: {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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool removes a repost, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the repost doesn't exist, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and doesn't add rich behavioral context beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand operational risks.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is highly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by brief sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place by directly contributing to understanding the tool's function, parameters, and output without any fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (a destructive operation with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or return value specifics. It meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps that could hinder an agent's effective use.

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?

The description adds meaningful semantics for the single parameter 'repost_uri' by specifying it's 'URI of the repost to remove,' clarifying its purpose beyond the schema's generic 'Repost Uri' title. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well by providing essential context. However, it doesn't detail the URI format or examples, preventing a perfect score.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('a repost of another user's post'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_post' by specifying it's for removing reposts rather than original posts. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'unlike_post' or other undo operations, keeping it from 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 specifying it's for 'a repost of another user's post,' suggesting it should be used when undoing a repost action. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'delete_post' (for original posts) or mention prerequisites such as authentication status. The context is clear but lacks explicit when-not-to-use statements or named alternatives.

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