Public feeds, most followed first. Optionally one collection.
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": "list_feeds"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collection | No | Collection slug, e.g. games (see list_collections) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / collection / descriptionPrevious value: -"Collection slug"New value: +"Collection slug, e.g. games (see list_collections)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds two useful behaviors beyond that: results are limited to public feeds and are ordered by follower count descending. It says nothing about result volume, pagination, or whether the collection filter excludes uncollected feeds.
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?
Two short fragments with zero filler and the scope/ordering upfront. It is efficient, though the telegraphic style leaves out a verb that would cost almost nothing to include.
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 single-optional-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description should say what a feed record looks like or whether results are paginated/limited. As written the agent knows the shape of the input but not the response.
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%; the collection slug, its example, and the pointer to list_collections are all documented in the schema. The description's 'optionally one collection' only restates that the parameter is optional, adding no new syntax or semantics.
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 fragment 'Public feeds, most followed first' identifies the resource and its ordering, but never states the action (list/browse) and does not distinguish it from close siblings like feed_items, submit_feed, or create_feed. An agent can guess it returns a catalog of public feeds, but must infer rather than read it.
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?
'Optionally one collection' hints that the tool can be scoped, but there is no statement of when to choose this over feed_items, list_collections, or search. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are named.
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.