list_comment_feedsList the curated feeds available for engagement, each a hand-picked set of profiles. The name returned here is exactly what find_posts_to_comment's feed parameter takes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / items / items / properties / profile_countRemoved value: -{
- "type": "integer"
-}Output schema / properties / items / items / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id",
- "name",
- "profile_count"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "name"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the domain semantics that feeds are curated, hand-picked profile sets, which an agent cannot get from annotations. It does not mention pagination or whether results vary per account, but the output schema carries the return shape.
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 sentences, both earning their place: the first defines the resource, the second establishes the cross-tool contract. Purpose is front-loaded with no redundant restatement of the title.
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?
With no inputs, an output schema, and strong annotations, the definition needs little more; it supplies the one non-obvious fact (the name feeds into find_posts_to_comment). Only minor gaps remain, such as whether the feed list is stable or account-specific.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Its reference to the feed parameter actually belongs to a sibling tool and is correctly framed as an output dependency rather than an input here.
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 and resource ('List the curated feeds') and qualifies what a feed is ('a hand-picked set of profiles'), which distinguishes it from the many other list_* siblings that return drafts, posts, or media.
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 second sentence tells the agent exactly why this tool exists: the returned name is the value find_posts_to_comment's feed parameter accepts, implicitly routing the agent here before that call. It lacks an explicit 'do not call if...' clause, but the consumption path is clear.
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.