read_feedRead a curated space & spaceflight 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": "nasa-news"
- },
- {
- "feed": "spacex-updates",
- "limit": 10,
- "query": "starship"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "nasa-news"
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "spaceflight-now",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "launch"
+ }
+]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "nasa-news"
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "spacex-updates",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "starship"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return payload fields (title, link, published, summary) and the optional keyword filtering, which no structured field provides.
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: the identification and return contract first, the optional filter second. No filler, nothing redundant.
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 carries the return-shape burden and does so adequately. It omits the limit/default-20 behavior, but that is covered by the schema, so the omission is minor.
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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions the keyword filter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already says; 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?
States a specific verb (read) and resource (curated space & spaceflight feed) and names the source of the id (list_feeds). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling fetch_feed, which an agent could easily confuse with it.
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?
The phrase 'by its id (from list_feeds)' implies the list-then-read workflow, which is useful context. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. fetch_feed, nor any exclusion or precondition stated.
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.