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.
Input schema / examplesPrevious value: -[
- {
- "feed": "cisa-alerts"
- },
- {
- "feed": "nist-nvd",
- "limit": 10,
- "query": "critical"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "cisa-advisories"
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "the-hacker-news",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "security"
+ }
+]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 declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (normalized title/link/published/summary items) and the optional filtering behavior, which no annotation conveys.
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, front-loaded with the primary action and id source, then the return shape and optional filter. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.
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 usefully summarizes the returned item fields, and the 100%-covered input schema handles parameters. The only shortfall is the unresolved overlap with fetch_feed, which matters given how similar the two siblings are.
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 feed, limit and query completely, including the 1-50/default-20 range and filter target. The description only restates the id lookup and keyword filter, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema – the correct baseline of 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Read a curated cybersecurity feed by its id') and even summarizes the payload (normalized items with title, link, published, summary). It points at list_feeds for id discovery, but never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling fetch_feed, leaving that ambiguity unresolved.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the description tells the agent where the id comes from (list_feeds) and that a keyword filter is optional, but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing versus fetch_feed or search_within.
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.