fetch_feedFetch and normalize any RSS / Atom / RDF feed by URL. CF-robust: fetches directly and falls back to a proxy if the source blocks the gateway. Use list_feeds first for curated sources.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Feed URL, e.g. "https://news.ycombinator.com/rss". | |
| 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: -[
- {
- "url": "https://news.ycombinator.com/rss"
- },
- {
- "limit": 15,
- "query": "Senate",
- "url": "https://feeds.reuters.com/politics"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "url": "https://news.ycombinator.com/rss"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 15,
+ "query": "Senate",
+ "url": "https://feeds.npr.org/1014/rss.xml"
+ }
+]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "url": "https://news.ycombinator.com/rss"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 15,
+ "query": "Senate",
+ "url": "https://feeds.reuters.com/politics"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). Description adds value by revealing the proxy fallback mechanism and normalization behavior. No contradictions. Additional traits like rate limits or auth are not needed 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?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence serves a distinct role: action, robustness, usage guidance. No redundant or unnecessary information.
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 simple fetch tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it does, how it handles failures, and when to use alternatives. Minor omission of return format but not critical given tool 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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'Fetch and normalize' and the resource 'any RSS / Atom / RDF feed by URL.' It differentiates from sibling tools like 'list_feeds' (curated sources) and 'read_feed', establishing a unique purpose.
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?
Provides explicit guidance: 'Use list_feeds first for curated sources.' Also mentions CF-robust fallback behavior, which implies when this tool is advantageous. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios but offers clear context.
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.