Discover up to 50 RSS, Atom and JSON Feed links declared in supplied HTML. FREE during validation. No key, credits or wallet. Existing source and input limits apply.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | ||
| requestId | No | Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode. | |
| maxPriceMicroUsd | No | Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feeds | Yes | ||
| truncated | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / maxPriceMicroUsd / descriptionPrevious value: -"Explicit maximum new debit; 0 means recovery only."New value: +"Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode."Input schema / properties / maxPriceMicroUsd / maximumRemoved value: -999999999999Input schema / properties / requestId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Persist the ID returned by agent_utilities_prepare. Reuse after uncertainty."New value: +"Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode."Input schema / properties / requestId / patternRemoved value: -"^\\d{13}_[A-Za-z0-9_-]{16,80}$"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "input",
- "requestId",
- "maxPriceMicroUsd"
-]New value: +[
+ "input"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: a hard cap of 50 discovered feeds, no key/credits/wallet required, and that existing source and input limits apply. It does not, however, explain what happens when no feeds are found or how relative URLs are handled.
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?
Three short sentences with the core capability front-loaded and no redundancy. The two pricing sentences are relevant but slightly less essential than the discovery-scope statement, keeping it just short of ideal prioritization.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and annotations cover the safety profile. Given modest tool complexity, the remaining gaps (baseUrl semantics, empty-result behavior) are minor rather than crippling.
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 a moderate 67%, with the nested input.html and input.baseUrl documented only implicitly and the two legacy fields marked as ignored. The description says 'supplied HTML' but never mentions baseUrl's role in resolving relative feed URLs or the 100k/2048 length caps, so it adds little beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb (Discover) and resource (RSS, Atom and JSON Feed links declared in supplied HTML) with a concrete scope cap of 50. This clearly separates it from siblings like html_links and html_metadata, which extract other HTML artifacts.
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?
Contains no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The pricing and limit sentences ('FREE during validation', 'Existing source and input limits apply') describe cost constraints rather than selection guidance, so an agent still has to infer when this tool is appropriate.
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.