get_sourceInspect one topic inbox in detail: every RSS feed (with its health and last fetch), every monitored web search, X/Twitter profiles, and the newsletters currently arriving at its dedicated address. Use it before removing or reorganising anything.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source_id | Yes | Id from list_sources |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds rich behavioral context: what is inspected (RSS feeds with health and last fetch, web searches, X/Twitter profiles, newsletters). It also reinforces the read-only nature by describing inspection rather than mutation. 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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and details; the second provides actionable usage advice. Every sentence adds value.
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 read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists the return components. It does not describe the response structure in detail, but that is not strictly necessary for decision-making. The annotation and schema cover remaining context.
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% (one parameter fully described as 'Id from list_sources'). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format or validation rules. Per guidelines, high coverage yields baseline 3.
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 the tool inspects one topic inbox in detail, listing specific components (RSS feeds, web searches, profiles, newsletters). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_source and update_source by focusing on inspection. The verb 'inspect' and resource 'topic inbox' are specific and differentiated.
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 explicitly says 'Use it before removing or reorganising anything,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It implies the tool is not for modification, but does not explicitly name alternative tools like delete_source or update_source. This is clear context without full exclusions.
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.