list_feedsList the curated education feeds (id, title, category, source). Optionally filter by category (education) 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: education. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "category": "education"
+ },
+ {
+ "query": "programming"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the return fields (id, title, category, source) and filtering options. Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, etc.) so description complements well.
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 efficiently structured sentences: first states purpose and output, second describes optional filters and directs to related tool. No superfluous content.
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?
Given no output schema, description specifies return fields (id, title, category, source) which is sufficient for a list tool. Could be slightly more detailed about pagination or ordering but not necessary.
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 descriptions for both parameters. Description essentially repeats the schema info, adding no new semantics. Baseline 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?
Description clearly states the tool lists curated education feeds with specific attributes (id, title, category, source) and distinguishes itself from read_feed by directing users to use it for detailed retrieval.
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?
Provides clear context for using this tool for listing and filtering, and explicitly directs users to read_feed for individual feed retrieval. Does not include explicit when-not-to-use but is sufficient.
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.