list_feedsList the curated health & medicine feeds (id, title, category, source). Optionally filter by category (health) 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: health. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "category": "health"
+ },
+ {
+ "query": "coronavirus"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond listing the return fields. Sufficient given annotation coverage.
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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No redundant or unnecessary text.
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 simple listing tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description covers the basics (return fields, filtering, relation to read_feed). Slightly lacking in pagination/ordering but not critical.
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% for both parameters. Description mentions filtering but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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?
Description clearly states it lists curated health & medicine feeds with specific return fields (id, title, category, source). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'read_feed' by advising to pass an id to that tool.
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 guidance on optional filters and when to use read_feed instead. Though not exhaustive, it gives clear context for a simple tool.
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.