read_feedRead a curated artificial-intelligence feed by its id (from list_feeds). Returns normalized items (title, link, published, summary). Optionally filter items by keyword.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feed | Yes | Curated feed id (from list_feeds). | |
| limit | No | Max items (1-50, default 20). | |
| query | No | Keyword filter over item title/summary. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "arxiv-cs-ai"
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "hackernews",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "llm"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying the normalized return items (title, link, published, summary) and optional keyword filtering, going beyond the structured annotations.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loads the core action, and includes the return format and filtering option without any redundancy. Every word earns its place.
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 a simple 3-parameter tool, no output schema, and rich safety annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does, how to identify the feed, the return shape, and an optional behavior. It is suffficient for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it omits details like the limit parameter which the schema already covers.
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%, with each parameter fully described. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the feed id source and keyword filtering, but these are already present in the schema descriptions. Therefore, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 description clearly states the tool reads a curated AI feed by id, specifying the resource and action. It mentions the source (list_feeds) to obtain the id, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fetch_feed, so it falls short of a 5.
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 description provides clear context that the feed id must come from list_feeds, which is a usage prerequisite. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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.