Like a Bluesky post by supplying its AT URI and CID. Enables AI agents to engage with content by marking it as liked.
Like a Bluesky post (requires URI + CID)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cid | Yes | CID of the post to like | |
| uri | Yes | AT URI of the post to like |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Like a Bluesky post' and mentions required inputs; it does not state whether the action is idempotent, what side effects occur, whether authentication is needed beyond the implied context, or what response is returned.
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 concise sentence with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the prerequisite is stated compactly beside it, making it easy to scan and process.
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 two-parameter action, the description plus full schema coverage is minimally sufficient for invocation. However, without annotations or an output schema, it leaves out behavioral details like idempotency and response format, so it is not fully complete.
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 schema already documents the uri and cid parameters. The description adds only that they are required, which is already encoded in the schema's required array, so it provides no meaningful additional semantic value.
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 states a specific verb ('Like') and resource ('Bluesky post'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also naturally distinguishes this from sibling tools like repost and delete_post by naming the exact action, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.
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 implies usage by naming the action and prerequisites, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. An agent can infer this is the like action, but there is no direct guidance on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.