unmute_accountUnhide an account's posts so their content appears in your feed again. Use it to reverse a mute for a given handle or DID.
Stop hiding an account's posts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actor | Yes | Handle or DID. | |
| account | No | Which 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. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety and idempotency are covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no statement about auth requirements, no-ops on unmuted accounts, or whether the change is reversible.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient, though the brevity is closer to under-specification than disciplined conciseness.
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 state-toggle tool with complete schema coverage, no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits the sibling relationship and any no-op behavior, which are the remaining 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, including the actor format ('Handle or DID') and the account default and list_accounts pointer, so the schema carries the full parameter burden. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the baseline 3 case.
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 concrete effect ('stop hiding an account's posts'), which is a specific verb+resource and clearly the inverse of a mute operation. It does not name the sibling mute_account, so the pairing must be inferred from the tool name alone.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives, no reference to mute_account as the counterpart, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the account must already be muted, or what happens if it isn't). The agent is left to infer all routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.