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://www.nasa.gov/news/nasa-news-feed.rss"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 15,
+ "query": "launch",
+ "url": "https://spaceflightnow.com/feed/"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the proxy fallback for blocked sources, which is valuable context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't detail normalization output or error cases.
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 convey the core operation, a key robustness trait, and a usage pointer. No filler or 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?
For a low-complexity fetch tool with rich annotations, the description covers the main behavior and usage. It lacks an explicit return format, but 'normalize' implies a standardized structure, and the schema examples help. Overall sufficient.
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 clear descriptions for url, limit, and query. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond saying 'by URL' and the examples in the schema, so baseline 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?
Clearly states the tool fetches and normalizes any RSS/Atom/RDF feed by URL, differentiating from list_feeds by recommending it for curated sources. The phrase 'any ... by URL' makes it distinct from read_feed and other siblings.
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 tells users to use list_feeds first for curated sources, providing clear when-to-use guidance. The CF-robust note adds context for when direct fetch might be blocked, effectively signaling a fallback behavior.
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.