fetch_feedFetch and normalize any RSS / Atom / RDF feed by URL. CF-robust: fetches directly and falls back to a proxy if the source blocks the gateway. Use list_feeds first for curated sources.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Feed URL, e.g. "https://news.ycombinator.com/rss". | |
| 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: -[
- {
- "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion.aspx"
- },
- {
- "limit": 15,
- "query": "appeal",
- "url": "https://feeds.law.com/latest-decisions"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "url": "https://www.scotusblog.com/feed/"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 15,
+ "query": "court",
+ "url": "https://www.scotusblog.com/feed/"
+ }
+]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion.aspx"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 15,
+ "query": "appeal",
+ "url": "https://feeds.law.com/latest-decisions"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context about CF-robustness (direct fetch with proxy fallback) and normalization, which goes beyond 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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core function, then adds the CF-robustness detail and usage guidance efficiently.
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 fetch tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is fairly complete. It could mention what the normalized output looks like or how it differs from read_feed, but the core information needed to call it correctly is present.
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 three parameters (url, limit, query). The description doesn't add much parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, though it does mention normalization which implies the output format is standardized.
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 fetches and normalizes RSS/Atom/RDF feeds by URL, which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like list_feeds and read_feed by mentioning normalization and direct fetching with proxy fallback.
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 explicitly says to use list_feeds first for curated sources, providing some usage guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with read_feed or other feed-related siblings, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over read_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.