Follow any Bluesky user by providing their handle to see their posts and activity in your feed.
Follow a Bluesky user by handle
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | Bluesky handle to follow (e.g. alice.bsky.social) |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'Follow' but does not mention that it is a state-changing operation requiring authentication, nor any side effects or failure modes. This leaves the agent to infer the mutation behavior.
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?
The description is a single six-word sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and the target, so it is highly concise.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action and parameter, but it omits behavioral context such as authentication, idempotency, and consequences. This is adequate but leaves clear gaps.
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?
The parameter schema already describes 'handle' fully, including an example, and coverage is 100%. The description's 'by handle' adds no new information beyond the schema.
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?
The description uses a specific verb 'Follow' and a specific resource 'Bluesky user', and specifies the target via 'handle'. No sibling tool overlaps with this action, so it is clearly distinguishable.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only implicit hint is the action itself, which is not enough to meet the 'when-to-use' bar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.