read_feedRead a curated sports 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": "espn-nfl"
- },
- {
- "feed": "nba-official",
- "limit": 10,
- "query": "Lakers"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "bbc-sport"
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "formula1",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "race"
+ }
+]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "espn-nfl"
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "nba-official",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "Lakers"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that items are normalized and enumerating the returned fields (title, link, published, summary), which goes beyond the structured 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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the return shape and optional filter, so every sentence earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple: one required parameter, full schema coverage, and annotations covering side-effect behavior. The description compensates for the lack of an output schema by naming the normalized fields, making the definition complete enough for correct invocation.
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%, and the schema already explains feed, limit, and query meaningfully. The description adds little beyond restating the feed id source and the optional keyword filter, so the baseline of 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?
The description states a specific action (read a curated sports feed) and resource (feed id from list_feeds), and describes the normalized item fields returned. It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like fetch_feed or list_feeds, so a small clarity gap remains.
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 description gives clear context on when to use the tool: with a feed id obtained from list_feeds, and optionally filtered by keyword. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the prerequisite relationship to list_feeds provides adequate orientation.
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.