list_feedsList the curated travel feeds (id, title, category, source). Optionally filter by category (travel) 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: travel. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "category": "travel"
+ },
+ {
+ "query": "backpacking"
+ }
+]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 description's marginal addition of listing fields and optional filtering does not reveal new behavioral traits. The description is consistent with annotations but not additive beyond filtering details.
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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The main action and key differentiating point are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose.
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 tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and links to an alternative tool. Minor gaps like pagination or sorting are not critical given the simplicity.
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%, with both parameters fully described. The description restates that filtering by category or keyword is optional, adding no new meaning beyond the schema's existing documentation.
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 tool lists curated travel feeds with specific fields (id, title, category, source). It distinguishes from the sibling 'read_feed' by directing to pass an id to fetch a full feed, providing clear differentiation.
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 explains optional filtering by category or keyword, and indicates that to retrieve a specific feed, one should use 'read_feed'. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context for browsing vs fetching is clear.
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.