read_feedRead a curated science & space 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": "nasa-latest",
- "limit": 10
- },
- {
- "feed": "nature-articles",
- "query": "climate"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "nature",
+ "limit": 10
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "sciencedaily",
+ "query": "climate"
+ }
+]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "nasa-latest",
+ "limit": 10
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "nature-articles",
+ "query": "climate"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the return shape ('normalized items (title, link, published, summary)') and that keyword filtering is optional — important since there is no output schema.
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 tight sentences with the core action and id source front-loaded, and the return shape second. 'Optionally filter items by keyword' slightly duplicates the query parameter already in the schema, a minor redundancy but nothing wasteful.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing returned fields (title, link, published, summary), and the required feed param plus limit behavior are covered by the schema. Pagination/ordering semantics and the read_feed vs fetch_feed distinction are the only meaningful omissions.
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 all three parameters (feed, limit, query) are already documented, including the 1-50/default-20 range and the title/summary scope of the keyword filter. The description only restates the feed-id source and the keyword filter, adding no meaning beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb plus resource ('Read a curated science & space feed by its id') and even names the feed's provenance via list_feeds. It is clear what it does, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling fetch_feed, leaving their relative roles ambiguous.
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 parenthetical '(from list_feeds)' implicitly routes the agent to list_feeds first to obtain an id, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no differentiation from fetch_feed, so usage must be inferred.
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.