read_feedRead a curated education 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": "edx-courses"
- },
- {
- "feed": "coursera-updates",
- "limit": 10,
- "query": "machine learning"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "edsurge"
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "k12-dive",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "school"
+ }
+]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "edx-courses"
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "coursera-updates",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "machine learning"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the normalized return fields and the optional keyword filter, but says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or behavior when the id is unknown.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and id source, then the return shape and optional filtering. No filler.
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 compensates by listing the returned item fields, and the params are fully documented in the schema. What remains thin is disambiguation from fetch_feed, but nothing critical to calling the tool is missing.
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 feed, limit (1-50, default 20), and query. The description restates the keyword filter without adding format or syntax beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (Read) and resource (curated education feed) with the id source ('from list_feeds') and the return shape. However it does not distinguish itself from the sibling fetch_feed, leaving ambiguity about which retrieval tool to pick.
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?
'by its id (from list_feeds)' implies the prerequisite of obtaining an id first, which is genuine usage context. But there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance or exclusion relative to fetch_feed or search_within.
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.