list_data_feedsList all available data feeds (plan, marketplace subs, user uploads).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| success | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / descriptionPrevious value: -"Structured Gogi result. Error responses include error and message fields."New value: +"Structured result. Error responses include error and message."Output schema / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "error": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "Structured Gogi result. Error responses include error and message fields.",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered and the description does not need to restate it. The description adds the useful detail that results span plan/marketplace/user-upload sources, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or result size.
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?
A single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the action and then the result scope. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. The only minor gap is that it does not contrast with the singular get_data_feed sibling, leaving list-vs-get routing to be inferred.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The description appropriately focuses on what is returned rather than inventing input options.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('data feeds') and clarifies the scope with the parenthetical breakdown (plan, marketplace subs, user uploads). It does not explicitly name the singular sibling get_data_feeds/get_data_feed, but 'List all' implicitly distinguishes it from a single-feed retrieval.
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 the usage context by enumerating the feed categories returned, but it never states when to call this versus get_data_feed or other catalog tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.