create_sourceCreate a new topic inbox: a themed container with its own dedicated email address (subscribe newsletters to it), which can hold RSS feeds and monitored web searches. This is how you add a whole new subject to someone's information diet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Short name, e.g. "AI research" or "Local news" | |
| description | No | Optional: what belongs in here — it also guides the editor |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are sparse (no hints beyond readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool creates a new entity with an email address, and that it can hold various content types. It does not describe what the response looks like (no output schema), but for a create tool, the impact is relatively clear. The lack of output schema is a minor gap.
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, well-structured sentence with a colon and a list, packing in purpose, features, and usage context without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place.
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 tool creates a new entity with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the tool's role as a parent container for siblings like add_feed and add_web_search. A minor gap is that it doesn't mention the success/error response format, but this is acceptable for a simple creation tool.
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%, so the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the context of the name field (e.g., 'AI research' or 'Local news') and the description field's role in guiding the editor. The description does not restate the schema but provides meaningful elaboration.
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 identifies the verb ('create'), the resource ('topic inbox'), and its distinctive purpose as a themed container with its own email address for newsletters, RSS feeds, and web searches. It also distinguishes from siblings like add_feed or add_web_search by framing this as the parent container for those items.
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 provides strong usage context: it's for adding a new subject to someone's information diet, and it lists what the container can hold (newsletters, RSS feeds, web searches). It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. adding to an existing source), but the sibling context and the phrase 'whole new subject' imply it's for new topics, not updates.
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.