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 / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "url": "https://feeds.example.com/security.xml"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 15,
+ "query": "breach",
+ "url": "https://security-blog.example.com/rss"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds fallback proxy behavior beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), but does not contradict them; no annotation contradiction.
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, no waste: first states purpose, second adds robustness and sibling guidance.
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?
No output schema, and description omits normalization results format; adequate but incomplete for fetch tool.
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 coverage is 100% with good descriptions; description adds no extra param detail beyond that, meeting baseline 3.
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 uses specific verb 'fetch and normalize' and identifies resource types (RSS/Atom/RDF feeds), clearly distinguishing from siblings like list_feeds.
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 using list_feeds first for curated sources, providing clear context; no when-not-to-use but sibling differentiation is strong.
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.