Skip to main content
Glama
thenavidm

bluesky-mcp

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Count unread notifications

get_unread_count
Read-onlyIdempotent

Count unread Bluesky notifications for a chosen account since the last seen mark, so you can decide whether to load the full list.

Instructions

How many notifications have arrived since you last marked them seen. One cheap call, worth making before you pull the full list.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the count window is anchored to the last 'mark seen' action, and it characterizes the call as low-cost. Return format/pagination is not discussed, but the tool is a trivial read.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the counting semantics front-loaded and the usage cue second. Nothing to trim.

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 one-optional-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers what is counted and why to call it. It could note that the result is a plain integer, but nothing critical to 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% and the single 'account' parameter is fully documented with its default and a pointer to list_accounts. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 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 quantity (how many notifications) and the scope that makes it distinct: 'since you last marked them seen.' This separates it from get_notifications and mark_notifications_seen without naming them, but the distinction is inferable from the phrasing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Worth making before you pull the full list' gives an explicit ordering cue relative to the heavier get_notifications sibling, and 'one cheap call' signals cost. It stops short of naming the alternative tool outright or stating when the count is not useful.

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