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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "url": "https://www.theguardian.com/politics/rss"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 15,
+ "query": "senate",
+ "url": "https://feeds.politico.com/politico-news-feed.xml"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, indicating a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable context like 'CF-robust: fetches directly and falls back to a proxy if the source blocks the gateway', disclosing fallback behavior beyond 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?
Two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage guidance. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.
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 fetch tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, and a key behavioral trait (fallback). It sufficiently differentiates from siblings in a list of 30+ tools. Could mention that it returns normalized feed items, but still complete enough.
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 input schema already documents all three parameters well. The description does not add new semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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?
The description clearly states it fetches and normalizes any RSS/Atom/RDF feed by URL. It distinguishes from the sibling 'list_feeds' by suggesting to use that for curated sources, making the purpose distinct.
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?
Explicitly advises to use 'list_feeds' first for curated sources, providing a clear when-not-to-use scenario and suggesting an alternative tool. This helps an AI agent decide which tool to invoke.
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.
Most tools have distinct jobs and the descriptions are unusually explicit about routing, but there are overlapping entry points: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all sit in the same query/research space. ask_pipeworx_beta even states it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, which makes some boundaries genuinely ambiguous despite strong descriptions.
The set is uniformly snake_case and has useful families like polymarket_* and pipeworx_*, plus many clear verb_noun names (list_feeds, read_feed, resolve_entity, validate_claim). However, roughly a third of tools use noun-led or adjective-led names (entity_profile, deep_research, recent_alerts, polymarket_arbitrage), so the pattern is readable but mixed.
34 tools is far beyond what a 'Politics Feeds' server needs, and a large portion of the surface (npm dependency scanning, AI visibility, memory, prediction markets, LLM text generation) is unrelated to the stated purpose. This feels like a kitchen-sink monolith rather than a scoped feed server.
Within its actual implied purpose as a broad Pipeworx data-research platform, the lifecycle is well covered: discover, resolve, ask, ground, research, compare, validate, monitor, subscribe, and remember are all present. The gaps are minor—no update-subscription operation and no direct cross-feed search for the feeds named by the server—so agents can work around them.