Get one feed record by id (e.g. 'gh:owner/repo#12', 'near:acct:7').
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "feed_get"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the lower bar applies. The description adds the concrete id format convention, which is real context, but says nothing about not-found behavior (error vs null) or that ids come from the indexed sources.
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?
A single short sentence with the resource first and the id convention immediately after; no filler, nothing to trim.
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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the essential calling information is present. The only real gap is the absence of an output schema combined with no description of what a feed record contains, plus unstated not-found semantics.
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 0% with a bare 'id: string', so the description must carry the meaning, and it does: two worked examples ('gh:owner/repo#12', 'near:acct:7') reveal the namespaced source-prefix convention that the schema does not convey. It could go further by stating the full set of valid prefixes.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource ('Get one feed record') and constrains scope to a single record by id, which separates it from the plural/search siblings like feed_search and feed_stats. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, so it is clear but not fully 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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus feed_search or feed_stats, and no prerequisite such as 'use an id returned by feed_search'. The id examples imply lookup of a known identifier rather than discovery, but that inference is left entirely to the agent.
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.