list_rss_feedsList RSS autopost feeds — RSS/Atom feeds polled every 15 minutes whose new items automatically become posts. Returns name, feedUrl, channelIds, mode, fieldMapping (how items are rendered into posts; null = default), enabled, lastCheckedAt, and lastError for each feed. Use this when the user wants their RSS autopost feeds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, it reveals that feeds are polled on a fixed 15-minute cadence and that new items are automatically rendered into posts. It also discloses the exact output contract, including the meaning of fieldMapping (null = default) and the presence of lastCheckedAt and lastError, which is especially valuable given there is no output schema.
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?
The definition is compressed into three purposeful sentences: resource definition, return fields, and usage instruction. There is no repetition of the title or annotation boilerplate.
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?
With no output schema, the description takes on the responsibility of describing the return value, and it names all relevant fields and their semantics. There are no required parameters or preconditions to document, so nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.
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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters for the description to clarify. With 0 params the baseline is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter commentary.
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 opens with a specific verb-object statement, 'List RSS autopost feeds,' and defines the resource as RSS/Atom feeds polled every 15 minutes whose new items become posts. The return-field enumeration makes clear this is a read-only listing tool, and the 'autopost' term distinguishes it from generic list_posts/list_channels siblings.
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?
It explicitly tells the agent when to call it: 'Use this when the user wants their RSS autopost feeds.' It doesn't spell out when-not-to-use or name alternatives like create_rss_feed/update_rss_feed/delete_rss_feed, but the sibling names make those distinctions obvious.
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.
Many tools occupy adjacent spaces, especially the interactive view_* tools versus their get_/list_ counterparts (view_posts/list_posts, view_analytics/get_analytics) and the multiple upload paths (upload_media, create_media_upload, multipart flow). Detailed 'Use this when' guidance helps, but an agent could still misselect between compose_post and create_post or between bulk_posts and the individual delete/retry/update operations.
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout: create/get/update/delete/list for each resource (posts, media, labels, channel sets, RSS feeds, schedules), plus publish/approve/reject/retry/upload/view. No style mixing or inconsistent casing.
51 tools is an extremely large surface, crossing the calibration's 50+ extreme threshold. While the platform covers many subdomains, this volume is likely to overwhelm agents and makes the toolkit unwieldy for an MCP server.
The toolkit provides broad lifecycle coverage: CRUD for posts, media, labels, channel sets, RSS feeds, and schedules, plus publishing, approvals, retries, bulk operations, analytics, quota, channel health, and media upload variants. Minor gaps exist, such as no get_channel single-resource getter and no way to update media labels directly, but agents can work around these.