list_feedsList the curated food & dining feeds (id, title, category, source). Optionally filter by category (food) 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: food. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints, and the description adds useful context by noting the feed is curated and listing the exact fields returned. It also hints at the relationship to read_feed. No contradictions with annotations.
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 with no filler. The first sentence states the core function and fields; the second covers filters and the handoff to read_feed. Every word 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?
Given the low complexity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return fields, filters, and next-step guidance. Minor gaps like pagination or ordering are not critical for a simple listing tool.
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 query and category. The description's mention of 'filter by category (food) or keyword' directly maps to the schema, adding no new semantic depth beyond what the schema already provides.
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 the tool lists curated food & dining feeds with specific fields (id, title, category, source). It distinguishes itself from siblings like read_feed by mentioning the next step, making the purpose unmistakable.
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?
It provides a clear usage context: list feeds with optional filters, then pass an id to read_feed. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list-type siblings like list_subscriptions or fetch_feed, so the guidance is good but not exhaustive.
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.