Skip to main content
Glama
thenavidm

bluesky-mcp

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Follow an account

follow
Idempotent

Subscribe to a Bluesky account using its handle or DID, optionally as a selected connected account; repeating the action is harmless.

Instructions

Follow an account by handle or DID. Following twice is harmless.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actorYesHandle (with or without @) or DID.
accountNoWhich connected account to act as, by handle (for example 'alice.bsky.social' or just 'alice'). Defaults to the first connected account. Call list_accounts to see them.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.0.1
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Following twice is harmless' merely restates the idempotentHint. Beyond that, nothing new is disclosed about auth requirements, visibility of the follow (public/private accounts), or rate limits.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and identifier forms. The second sentence is arguably redundant with the idempotency annotation, but the overall size is tight.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple, non-destructive mutation with full schema coverage and annotations declaring safety, the description is nearly sufficient. It omits any note on effects (e.g., notification to the target) but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: 'actor' is documented as handle-or-DID and 'account' explains the acting account with a pointer to list_accounts. The description's 'by handle or DID' adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Follow an account'), and clarifies the accepted identifier forms. It does not name the sibling it contrasts with (unfollow) or scope the side effects, so it is clear but not fully differentiated from siblings in prose.

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?

'Following twice is harmless' hints at safe repeated use, but there is no guidance on when to follow versus related tools like get_suggested_follows or search_actors, nor any prerequisites. Usage is only implied rather than spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools