read_feedRead a curated food & dining 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": "food-blog-daily"
- },
- {
- "feed": "food-blog-daily",
- "limit": 10,
- "query": "vegetarian"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "eater"
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "bon-appetit",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "recipe"
+ }
+]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "food-blog-daily"
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "food-blog-daily",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "vegetarian"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses the normalized return shape (title, link, published, summary) and that query filters over items, adding real behavioral context; pagination behavior and default limit (20) are left to the schema.
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 zero filler: purpose and id source first, return contract and optional filter second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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 usefully enumerates the returned item fields, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The only gap is disambiguation from fetch_feed, which an agent might need in order to pick the right 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 description coverage is 100%, so feed, limit (1-50, default 20) and query semantics are fully documented in structured fields. The description only restates the feed-id source and keyword filtering, adding little syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema; baseline 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+resource ('Read a curated food & dining feed by its id') and names the scope (curated feeds), which separates it from generic search tools. It does not differentiate from the sibling fetch_feed, which remains ambiguous to an agent choosing between the two.
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 a clear prerequisite/route: the feed id comes 'from list_feeds', so an agent knows to enumerate feeds first. It does not state when to prefer this over fetch_feed or when filtering by query is appropriate versus fetching everything.
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.