list_peopleanalyst_feedsList PeopleAnalyst's free machine-readable feeds and their MCP/REST availability. OpenAPI is also published at https://peopleanalyst.com/openapi.json.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feeds | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful context: the feeds are free and machine-readable, availability is described for MCP/REST, and an OpenAPI endpoint is published. No behavioral contradictions exist.
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 two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the supplementary OpenAPI link placed second. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 parameterless, read-only listing tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description fully equips an agent to select and invoke it. The OpenAPI link also provides an external reference for further detail.
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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names the exact resource ('PeopleAnalyst's free machine-readable feeds') plus the key attribute ('their MCP/REST availability'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_* tools, which retrieve specific content rather than listing available feeds.
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 implies that the tool is for discovering available feeds, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions. The intended use is reasonably inferable from the verb and resource, but not fully spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.