read_feedRead a curated software-development 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": "hacker-news"
- },
- {
- "feed": "rust-blog",
- "limit": 10,
- "query": "async"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "github-blog"
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "rust-blog",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "Rust"
+ }
+]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "hacker-news"
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "rust-blog",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "async"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the normalized return fields (title, link, published, summary) and the optional keyword filtering behavior, which goes beyond what the annotations provide.
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 sentences with no wasted words. The core action and prerequisite are front-loaded, followed by return shape and optional filtering. Every sentence 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?
For a simple read tool with rich annotations and fully documented parameters, the description is complete. It explains the return shape despite no output schema, names the source of feed ids, and notes the optional filter. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.
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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds marginal context by mentioning that feed ids come from list_feeds and that filtering is optional, but it does not substantially extend the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read a curated software-development feed by its id' and references list_feeds for id discovery. It is clear and actionable, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling fetch_feed tool beyond the 'curated' and 'normalized' wording.
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 clearly tells the agent to obtain the feed id from list_feeds, establishing a prerequisite. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over fetch_feed or provide any exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
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.