read_feedRead a curated gaming 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": "ign-news"
- },
- {
- "feed": "pcgamer-reviews",
- "limit": 10,
- "query": "RPG"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "ign"
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "polygon",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "game"
+ }
+]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "ign-news"
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "pcgamer-reviews",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "RPG"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds value by specifying the output fields (title, link, published, summary) and the optional keyword filter behavior. However, it does not mention error handling, pagination, or any rate limits, which would be useful but are not critical given the 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and each sentence adds value without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured for quick parsing by an agent.
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 (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential details: how to get the id, what is returned, and the optional filter. It lacks error-handling details (e.g., invalid id) but these are minor and not critical for a read operation with annotations covering safety.
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 all parameters. The description adds a small amount of context (that feed id comes from list_feeds and query is a keyword filter), but this largely repeats the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the heavy lifting.
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 action (read), the resource (curated gaming feed), and the return type (normalized items with fields). It also mentions the source of the id (list_feeds), which adds context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling fetch_feed, which might perform a similar function.
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 gives a prerequisite (id from list_feeds) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fetch_feed or search_within. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate selection.
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.