export_opmlExports all subscribed feeds and folder structures of the current user as an OPML 2.0 XML document. Safe read-only operation.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "export_opml"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the sentence 'Safe read-only operation' mostly restates structured data rather than adding value. What the description does add is genuine behavioral context: the export covers all subscribed feeds plus folder hierarchy, scoped to the current user, and serialized as OPML 2.0. It says nothing about size limits or whether item/read state is included, which for a bulk export would matter.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and format. The trailing 'Safe read-only operation' sentence is redundant with the annotations and could be dropped, but it costs little and does not obscure the main statement.
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, non-destructive read tool with no nested schema and no output schema, the description covers what it produces (an OPML 2.0 XML document of feeds and folders) and the safety profile. The only missing pieces are edge context such as handling of empty subscriptions or whether large accounts are truncated.
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 description faces no parameter-documentation burden. The stated coupling to the current user's own subscriptions implicitly confirms there is no filtering or scoping input to supply.
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 (exports), resource (all subscribed feeds and folder structures), scope (current user), and output format (OPML 2.0 XML). This clearly separates it from sibling list/read tools like list_feeds or list_folders, which return individual resources rather than a portable OPML document.
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?
Usage is only implied: the mention of a portable OPML 2.0 document suggests feed-reader migration or backup, but the description never says when to choose this over list_feeds/list_folders, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. A single-purpose zero-parameter tool needs little guidance, but the gap is still real.
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.