list_feedsList the curated business & industry feeds (id, title, category, source). Optionally filter by category (business, economics, marketing, real-estate) or keyword. Pass an id to read_feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Keyword to match in feed title/source/description. | |
| category | No | Filter by category: business, economics, marketing, real-estate. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "category": "business"
+ },
+ {
+ "query": "startup"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the return fields, the curated nature of feeds, and the intended workflow of passing ids to read_feed. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but it's not a gap given the simple read-only nature.
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 extremely concise—two sentences—with the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence efficiently covers optional filters and the next-step pointer to read_feed. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.
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 simple list tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the resource (curated feeds), the returned fields, the two filters, and what to do with results. It lacks pagination or ordering details, but those are not essential for a basic list operation.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the category values and keyword filter, adding no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does mention returned fields, but that's not parameter semantics.
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 lists curated business/industry feeds and specifies the returned fields (id, title, category, source), making its purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly pointing to read_feed for a single feed.
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 gives direct usage guidance: optionally filter by category or keyword, and then pass an id to read_feed for full content. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_subscriptions or fetch_feed, but the read_feed pointer provides a clear next step and a basis for choosing this tool.
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.