read_feedRead a curated climate & energy 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": "carbon-brief"
- },
- {
- "feed": "iea-news",
- "limit": 10,
- "query": "solar"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "carbon-brief"
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "canary-media",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "solar"
+ }
+]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "carbon-brief"
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "iea-news",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "solar"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by naming the normalized return fields (title, link, published, summary) and stating that filtering is optional post-read behavior. It does not mention freshness, empty-result handling, or pagination beyond limit.
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 short sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. The return shape and the optional filter are each stated once in a single clause.
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 output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned item fields, and the required feed id plus optional limit/query are all covered by schema. What is missing is the read_feed vs fetch_feed distinction and any note on result freshness or empty feeds.
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% (feed, limit, query all documented with ranges and defaults), so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description only restates 'by its id' and 'filter by keyword' without adding format or edge-case meaning, 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Read a curated climate & energy feed by its id') and pins the id source to list_feeds. However, the sibling tool fetch_feed is never addressed, so the boundary between 'read curated feed by id' and 'fetch feed' remains ambiguous.
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 parenthetical '(from list_feeds)' gives a clear entry path, and the optional keyword filter implies a retrieval-then-narrow workflow. But there is no when-not guidance and no differentiation from the adjacent fetch_feed tool, leaving the agent to guess which to call.
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.