Create a Bluesky post with up to 300 characters, with URLs and @mentions detected and linked automatically.
Create a new Bluesky post (max 300 chars). URLs and @mentions auto-linked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Post text (max 300 chars). URLs and @mentions auto-detected. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful behaviors—300-character limit and automatic linking of URLs/@mentions—but does not describe side effects, auth requirements, or what happens after creation. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the core action, the limit, and the auto-link behavior without waste. Every phrase earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter creation tool, the description is largely complete: it states the action, the input constraint, and a key processing behavior. It does not explain return values, but no output schema exists and the lack of usage guidance against siblings is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents the 'text' parameter and its maxLength. The description repeats this rather than adding new semantic detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states a clear, specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Bluesky post'), with additional constraints (max 300 chars, auto-linked URLs/@mentions). This distinguishes it from read/delete/like siblings and even from reply_post by specifying 'new' post.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reply_post, delete_post, or like_post. The context implies it is for composing a standalone post, but the description never states this or calls out adjacent siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.