add_feedAdd an RSS/Atom feed to a topic inbox. You can pass the site address instead of the feed URL — the server fetches the page and discovers the feed. If it fails, the reason is precise (blocked by the site, gone, unreadable) so it can be reported honestly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Feed URL or plain site address, e.g. "ilpost.it" | |
| source_id | Yes | Which inbox (from list_sources) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already show readOnlyHint=false, so mutation is expected. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the server can auto-discover feeds from site addresses, error messages are precise, and the tool is idempotent (per annotation). This goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.
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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the main action. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Could be slightly more structured but is well within good practice.
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?
Given the simple parameter schema (2 mandatory fields, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It covers the main purpose, the extra discovery feature, error behavior, and doesn't need to explain return values since there is no output schema to reference. Still, a note on what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation) would be helpful but not essential.
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 coverage is 100% and the description adds no new detail for the parameters beyond what the schema already states (e.g., url can be a site address). The description does mention auto-discovery, which maps to the url parameter, but adds no extra semantics for source_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states it adds an RSS/Atom feed to a topic inbox, and even distinguishes it from similar tools like remove_feed. The added detail about accepting plain site addresses with automatic feed discovery adds significant clarity.
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 hints at when to use it (adding a feed to an inbox) and what happens on failure, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or how it compares to add_web_search or other sibling tools. The usage guidance is implicit, not explicit.
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.
Most tools target distinct operations (e.g., add_feed vs. remove_feed, get_source vs. list_sources). However, there is some ambiguity between correct_briefing and tune_topic (both adjust content based on user feedback) and between request_deep_dive and correct_briefing (both can trigger deeper investigation). The descriptions help, but an agent could misselect.
Tool names follow a very consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_feed, create_source, generate_briefing, list_sources). All use snake_case with clear, descriptive verbs and nouns. No mixing of conventions.
With 27 tools, the server covers a rich domain of news feed management, briefing generation, and user preferences. This is slightly above the typical sweet spot but still reasonable given the complexity. Each tool serves a distinct purpose; the count is justified.
The tool set provides full lifecycle coverage: sources can be created, read, updated, and deleted; feeds and searches can be added and removed; briefings can be generated, listed, read, rated, and corrected; deep dives and read-later items are supported. There are no obvious gaps—the domain is thoroughly covered.