read_feedRead a curated business & industry 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 / examplesPrevious value: -[
- {
- "feed": "techcrunch-articles"
- },
- {
- "feed": "wsj-markets",
- "limit": 10,
- "query": "stocks"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "forbes"
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "calculated-risk",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "housing"
+ }
+]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "techcrunch-articles"
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "wsj-markets",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "stocks"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the normalized output shape (title, link, published, summary), which is modest additional context documented nowhere else, but no auth, rate-limit, or failure behavior.
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?
Three tight sentences with zero filler: purpose and id source first, return shape second, optional filter last. Every sentence carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema.
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 read-only tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies the id provenance, the returned item fields (compensating for the absent output schema), and the optional filter. The only unanswered gap is disambiguation from fetch_feed.
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 all three parameters (feed, limit, query) are already documented in the schema, including the 1-50 range and default. The description's 'by its id' and 'filter items by keyword' merely restate feed and query without adding format or edge-case detail, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb and resource: 'Read a curated business & industry feed by its id', with the id source named (from list_feeds). It clearly distinguishes from list_feeds, but does not differentiate from the very similar sibling fetch_feed, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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?
Points the agent at list_feeds to obtain the id and notes the optional keyword filter, which implies usage. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this versus fetch_feed or search_within, so the routing decision is left to inference.
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.