read_feedRead a curated health & medicine 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": "nih-news"
- },
- {
- "feed": "medical-research",
- "limit": 10,
- "query": "vaccines"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "cdc-newsroom"
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "fierce-pharma",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "drug"
+ }
+]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "nih-news"
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "medical-research",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "vaccines"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the description's main added value is the return shape ('normalized items (title, link, published, summary)') and the optional keyword filtering behavior. This is useful context, though pagination and error behavior are not disclosed.
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-loads the primary action and resource, and every sentence adds useful information without fluff. It is compact and well structured.
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 read-only tool with three documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential call pattern and return fields. It is not fully complete because it omits ordering, pagination, and error behavior, but these are relatively minor for a simple read operation.
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 parameters are already fully documented. The description reinforces that feed comes from list_feeds and that query is a keyword filter, but it adds no new semantic information beyond the schema.
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 states a specific action ('Read a curated health & medicine feed by its id') and identifies the resource source ('from list_feeds'). It clearly communicates what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling fetch_feed or other feed-related tools.
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 clear usage context: use this tool to read a curated feed by id, with an optional keyword filter, and obtain the id from list_feeds. It does not, however, state when not to use it or point to alternative tools such as fetch_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.