Parse an RSS or Atom feed into items.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"url": "<url>"
},
"name": "rss"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Feed URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / urlAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Feed URL",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "url"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does not go far enough. It implies a network fetch and parse of the given URL, but says nothing about error handling, redirects, authentication, rate limits, or feed-format edge cases. It also gives only a minimal signal about the return shape ('items') without describing item structure.
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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It directly states the operation and the output concept. There is no redundant or filler language.
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 simple one-parameter feed parser, the description covers the basic purpose but leaves gaps because there is no output schema and no annotations. An agent does not know what fields each parsed item will contain or how failures are reported. The description is minimally viable rather than complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single 'url' parameter is already documented as 'Feed URL'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics such as format expectations or examples. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers the parameters.
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 states a specific verb and resource: parse an RSS or Atom feed into items. That is clear enough for an agent to understand the operation. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling parse_rss_feed, which appears to serve the same purpose.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as parse_rss_feed or generic readers. Usage is only implied by the verb 'parse' and the resource type. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-tool routing instructions.
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.