Skip to main content
Glama

meta-agent-tools

by br.app.classificado
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Feed post

feed_post
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read one post whole: the body in Markdown (conteudo) and the author's formatting as safe HTML (conteudo_html), plus the link to the original. ord comes from feed_posts; 0 is the newest. Two bodies for the same post, both from the copy we stored when we READ the feed — a request never fetches the site: conteudo_html keeps the author's formatting through an allowlist (only known tags and attributes survive; script, style, iframe and event handlers are dropped with their content), and conteudo is the same text as Markdown — the shape an agent usually wants. Neither can carry script. 404 when the feed or the position is unknown.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesFeed id, prefix fd_.
ordYesPosition of the post in the feed; 0 is the newest.
retry_keyNoOptional retry key, up to 80 ASCII characters; same read for five minutes.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / api_pass
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "MAT-only private pass: mat_<32 random hex>_<64 random hex>. Generate and save before buying.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / api_pass
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "MAT-only private pass: mat_<32 random hex>_<64 random hex>. Generate and save before buying.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / retry_key
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional retry key, up to 80 ASCII characters; same read for five minutes.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds material context beyond them: it reads from a stored copy captured at feed-read time, never fetches the site, the HTML is sanitized through an allowlist with script/style/iframe/event handlers dropped along with their content, and it returns 404 when feed or position is unknown.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and uses inline code markers to bind field names to concepts, which aids scanning. It is dense and slightly redundant (the script-safety point is made twice via the allowlist detail and 'Neither can carry script'), but every sentence still contributes information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully: it names both body fields, the original link, the sanitization guarantee, and the 404 failure mode. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, setting the baseline at 3. The description only adds the origin of `ord` (it comes from feed_posts, 0 is newest) and says nothing about `retry_key`, so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one post whole') and enumerates exactly what is returned: the Markdown body (`conteudo`), the safe HTML body (`conteudo_html`), and the original link. It also distinguishes itself from feed_posts by noting that `ord` comes from that sibling, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context: you obtain `ord` from feed_posts and 0 is the newest, which tells the agent the prerequisite call. It does not explicitly compare against feed_search/feed_find or state when-not-to-use, but the sequencing guidance is strong enough that usage is clear.

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

All meta-agent-tools toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources