fetch_feedFetch and normalize any RSS / Atom / RDF feed by URL. CF-robust: fetches directly and falls back to a proxy if the source blocks the gateway. Use list_feeds first for curated sources.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Feed URL, e.g. "https://news.ycombinator.com/rss". | |
| limit | No | Max items (1-50, default 20). | |
| query | No | Keyword filter over item title/summary. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints. The description adds 'CF-robust: fetches directly and falls back to a proxy if the source blocks the gateway', disclosing resilience behavior beyond the annotations. It also mentions normalization but does not detail output structure.
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?
The description is two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a key usage tip and behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.
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 tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, and a key behavioral fallback. However, 'normalize' is vague and the return format is not explained, which is a minor gap.
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% with detailed descriptions for url, limit, and query. The description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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?
The description clearly states 'Fetch and normalize any RSS / Atom / RDF feed by URL' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like list_feeds by explicitly directing users to use list_feeds first for curated sources.
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 provides explicit guidance to use list_feeds first for curated sources, which is an alternative. It implies general use for fetching any feed URL but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare with read_feed.
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.
Many tools have overlapping functionality (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and the set includes both food-specific feeds and general data tools without clear separation. Distinguishing between them, especially for an agent, would be difficult.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some are snake_case (list_feeds, read_feed), others are lowercase with underscores (ai_visibility_check), and many are multi-word without clear structure (polymarket_arbitrage, scan_dependency). This inconsistency makes it hard to predict tool names.
With 34 tools, the count is high, and most tools are unrelated to the server's stated purpose of 'Food Feeds'. The inclusion of general-purpose Pipeworx tools (e.g., deep_research, entity_profile, polymarket tools) makes the set bloated and unfocused.
For the food feeds domain, only three tools (list_feeds, read_feed, fetch_feed) are relevant, which is incomplete. The server lacks tools for searching, subscribing, or managing feeds. The presence of many unrelated tools does not compensate for this gap.