read_feedRead a curated technology 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": "hn-top-stories",
- "limit": 10
- },
- {
- "feed": "techcrunch-news",
- "query": "startup funding"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "hacker-news",
+ "limit": 10
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "techcrunch",
+ "query": "startup"
+ }
+]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "hn-top-stories",
+ "limit": 10
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "techcrunch-news",
+ "query": "startup funding"
+ }
+]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 that items are normalized and optionally keyword-filtered, but says nothing about pagination behavior beyond limit or error handling for an unknown feed id.
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 compact sentences that front-load the core action and return shape, with no filler. Slightly under-informative rather than padded, but structurally clean.
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 helpfully enumerates the returned fields (title, link, published, summary) and covers the optional filter. Adequate for a read tool whose annotations handle safety, though it omits pagination and id-source failure behavior.
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 each of the three parameters documented (feed, limit range/default, query filter scope), so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates the keyword filter without adding format or edge-case detail, which is the baseline for fully-covered schemas.
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 technology feed by its id') and names the source of the id (list_feeds). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling fetch_feed, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the description alone.
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?
Points to list_feeds as the way to obtain the id, which is useful routing, but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no differentiation from fetch_feed or search_within, leaving selection between these feed-reading siblings to inference.
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.