Profullstack

RSSAmp: List the people behind the feeds

rssamplifier_list_authors

Read-onlyIdempotent

[RSSAmp] The directory's authors and where else they publish — their own sites, Mastodon and Bluesky accounts, GitHub, links pages. Every link was published by the author on their own site as a rel="me" claim, an h-card or JSON-LD; nothing is scraped from a platform or bought. Filter with network to find only people reachable a given way (email, fediverse, bluesky, github, website, linktree), or query to search names. Role mailboxes like info@ are never returned: they are dropped at extraction, so an address here belongs to a person.

Served by RSSAmp (https://rssamp.com/mcp).

Tool call template

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": "rssamplifier_list_authors"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Default 50.
`query`	No	Search names.
`offset`	No	Default 0.
`network`	No	Only people with a link on this network, e.g. "email" or "fediverse".
`minConfidence`	No	How sure the attribution must be, 0 to 1. Default 0.6, which is what the site itself publishes. Lower it for the long tail, and expect some of it to be wrong.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered without prose. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: every link is an author-published rel="me"/h-card/JSON-LD claim, nothing is scraped or purchased, and role mailboxes such as info@ are dropped at extraction so a returned address belongs to a person. That is exactly the kind of trust/quality context annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource definition, then filtering semantics, then the data-quality guarantee — a sensible order with no filler. The opening clause is elliptical ('The directory's authors and where else they publish') rather than a complete sentence, and the trailing served-by line is boilerplate, but neither costs the reader much.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so at a conceptual level (people, their sites, social and code links, verified claim source). What is missing is result shape beyond that — ordering, total counts, how pagination interacts with the 200 limit — minor for a filtered directory list.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value the schema lacks: it enumerates candidate values for the enum-less network parameter (email, fediverse, bluesky, github, website, linktree) and explains the practical consequence of the minConfidence threshold. It does not explain limit/offset pagination behavior, which remains schema-only.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list / authors) and then specifies the payload: authors plus their other publishing locations (own sites, Mastodon, Bluesky, GitHub, link pages). The provenance sentence clarifies what an 'author record' actually is, which separates it from feed-oriented siblings like rssamplifier_list_feeds.

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?

Gives concrete narrowing guidance: use network to find people reachable a specific way, use query to search names, and lower minConfidence for the long tail with the caveat that it may be wrong. It does not name an alternative tool (e.g. get_author for a single person) or say when not to use this, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Profullstack tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?