get_feed
Discover and parse a site's RSS/Atom feed into JSON items. (content; $0.003/call in USDC via x402, 40 free/day).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Target URL or hostname. | |
| limit | No |
fetcher
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions pricing but does not state whether the operation is read-only, required authentication, rate limits, failure modes, or the structure of the returned JSON. The implicit read-only nature (discovering) is not explicitly confirmed.
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?
The description is concise (two sentences) with no superfluous words. The first sentence captures the core purpose. The second sentence adds pricing, which is extra but not essential. Could be slightly more compact, but overall very efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate but lacks details on expected input format (e.g., full URL vs hostname), behavior on invalid feeds, and output structure (e.g., JSON fields). It also does not help the agent decide between this and similar siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (only 'url' has a description). The description does not add any parameter details beyond the schema, particularly for 'limit' which has no schema description. The description should explain what 'limit' controls (e.g., max items).
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Discover and parse a site's RSS/Atom feed into JSON items.' It uses a specific verb (discover and parse) and resource (RSS/Atom feed), and distinguishes it from sibling URL tools (e.g., extract_content, check_domain) which are not feed-focused.
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?
The description implies the tool is for parsing RSS/Atom feeds, which differentiates it from siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there are overlapping pairs: unfurl_url/get_oembed/find_favicon all provide URL metadata, and render_page/screenshot_page both render a page (render_page can also screenshot). Descriptions help disambiguate, so only minor confusion is likely.
Naming Consistency3/5
Tool names mix verb_noun patterns (check_domain, extract_content) with noun_verb patterns (dns_lookup, ssl_lookup, whois_lookup). Additionally, guard_inspect and guard_tx deviate from the typical verb-first style. The naming is readable but not consistent.
Tool Count3/5
With 19 tools, the server is at the heavier end of the scale. While it covers a broad web-intel toolkit, several tools feel out of place for a 'fetcher' (e.g., generate_qr, guard_tx, guard_inspect), making the set feel bloated and unfocused.
Completeness4/5
The core web-fetching and analysis surface is well covered: DNS, WHOIS, SSL, headers, content extraction, rendering, screenshots, feeds, embeds, redirects, and robots. Missing is a simple raw HTML fetcher, but extract_content and render_page likely cover most needs. The addition of security and utility tools doesn't fill obvious gaps.