read_feedRead a curated US news, politics & government 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": "whitehouse-briefings"
- },
- {
- "feed": "reuters-politics",
- "limit": 10,
- "query": "election"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "npr-news"
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "govexec",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "federal"
+ }
+]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "whitehouse-briefings"
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "reuters-politics",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "election"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that by stating the output shape ('Returns normalized items (title, link, published, summary)') and keyword filtering behavior. No contradiction with 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?
Two compact sentences with no redundant wording. The main verb and resource are stated first, and the return format and optional filtering are packed concisely without sacrificing clarity.
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 read tool with full schema documentation and strong annotations, the description is complete. It names the ID source, describes the returned fields, and mentions keyword filtering. Since there is no output schema, the explicit return-shape note is especially valuable and adequate.
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 parameter semantics are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds little beyond restating that the feed id comes from list_feeds and that filtering is optional, 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 clearly states a specific action ('read') on a specific resource ('curated US news, politics & government feed by its id'), and points to list_feeds as the source of valid IDs. This distinguishes it from list_feeds and gives enough context to understand what kind of content it returns.
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: you need a feed id from list_feedsishment, and optionally filter by keyword. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling fetch_feed or state when to prefer this over another tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
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.