read_feedRead a curated cybersecurity 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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "cisa-alerts"
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "nist-nvd",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "critical"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds value by noting normalized output and keyword filtering, but does not go beyond what annotations cover for safety traits.
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, front-loaded with action and resource, no filler. Every sentence provides essential information.
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 read tool with rich annotations, the description adequately covers functionality, return format, filtering option, and prerequisite. No output schema needed as return fields are listed.
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 parameters are well-documented. The description restates the optional keyword filter, adding minimal new meaning 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?
Clearly states verb 'Read', resource 'curated cybersecurity feed', and specifies that it returns normalized items with fields (title, link, published, summary). Distinguishes from sibling tools like list_feeds and fetch_feed by requiring a feed id.
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?
Mentions prerequisite list_feeds for obtaining feed ids, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like fetch_feed or conditions to avoid. Context is clear but lacks exclusions.
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.
The ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_beta / ask_pipeworx_grounded trio creates real selection ambiguity — beta is currently identical to the stable router, and grounded shares the same routing with an added evidence step. Polymarket tools also overlap (polymarket_edges vs polymarket_arbitrage both surface structural arbitrage), and entity_profile/recent_changes both pull filings and news.
Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (resolve_entity, list_feeds, validate_claim, compare_entities). Minor deviations exist — bare verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe) and noun-first names (entity_profile, recent_changes, pipeworx_trending) — but the overall convention is consistent and readable.
34 tools is excessive for a server nominally named 'Security Feeds' — only three tools actually relate to security feeds. Even as a broad data-research platform, the surface feels bloated with five near-exclusive Polymarket tools, three memory tools, and four subscription-lifecycle tools that could be consolidated.
For the actual domain revealed by the tools (data research, entity intelligence, prediction markets, subscriptions, feeds), coverage is strong: resolution, profiles, changes, comparison, claim verification, memory CRUD, subscription lifecycle, and feed operations are all present. Minor gaps include no subscription-update tool and no direct feed-search tool, but the ask_pipeworx router compensates.