list_feedsList the curated space & spaceflight feeds (id, title, category, source). Optionally filter by category (space) or keyword. Pass an id to read_feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Keyword to match in feed title/source/description. | |
| category | No | Filter by category: space. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "category": "space"
+ },
+ {
+ "query": "spacex"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context: the feed set is 'curated' and scoped to 'space & spaceflight', and it reveals that filters are optional and that there is a handoff to read_feed for individual ids. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but for a read-only list tool this is sufficient given annotations.
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?
The description is compact, two sentences, with the primary verb front-loaded. Every sentence provides useful information: what is listed, optional filters, and a pointer to read_feed.
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 two-parameter optional-filters list tool with read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, and next step. It lists the returned fields in parentheses, which is sufficient given the absence of an output schema.
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 descriptions cover both parameters (query and category) at 100%, and the description merely paraphrases them ('filter by category (space) or keyword'). No new semantic detail is added, so 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'curated space & spaceflight feeds', and explicitly enumerates output fields (id, title, category, source). It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_feed and list_subscriptions by positioning this as the catalog listing function.
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?
It says 'Optionally filter by category (space) or keyword' to indicate when filtering is applicable. The phrase 'Pass an id to read_feed' provides an explicit alternative for when a specific feed is already identified, though it doesn't fully elaborate on exclusions for other siblings like fetch_feed.
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.