RSSHub Fetch
rsshub_fetchRead-onlyIdempotent
Fetch an RSSHub route using a failover pool of public RSSHub instances.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| route | Yes |
business-oss
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the failover pool behavior, which is useful context beyond annotations, but it does not disclose response format, error behavior, or rate limits. With annotations handling the safety profile, the description provides modest additional value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and the failover mechanism. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately short for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core operation and failover, but it omits critical details: how to construct the route parameter and what the response looks like. Without an output schema, the description should at least hint at the return type (e.g., RSS/XML or JSON). This is a noticeable gap for an agent to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'route' parameter. However, the description only mentions 'route' without specifying its format, examples, or whether it expects a full URL or just a path. This leaves the agent guessing what to pass, which is a significant gap for a tool with only one parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches an RSSHub route using a failover pool of public instances. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from the sibling tools (which are unrelated business, GitHub, stack, and search tools). An agent can immediately understand the operation without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when you need to fetch an RSSHub route, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. Since the sibling tools are clearly different in purpose, the usage context is somewhat inferred but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
The five tools have mostly distinct purposes: business tool recommendations, GitHub job generation, stack listing, RSS fetching, and web search. There is minor overlap between business_tool_routes and list_stack, as both deal with tool stacks, but they target different audiences and outputs.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent. Tools like rsshub_fetch and searxng_search follow a verb_noun pattern, while business_tool_routes and github_job_template are noun phrases. list_stack is a verb_noun but the rest do not follow a uniform convention, making the API surface less predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With exactly 5 tools, the server sits comfortably within the typical 3-15 range. Each tool provides a distinct capability without unnecessary bloat or excessive fragmentation.
Completeness3/5
The domain is a mix of unrelated functionalities (business recommendations, GitHub actions, web search, RSS). While each tool covers its stated purpose, the lack of a cohesive domain makes it hard to assess whether any operations are missing. For example, there is no tool for managing or updating GitHub jobs beyond generating a template, and no explicit search for business or stack data beyond the provided routes.