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://feeds.reuters.com/reuters/worldNews"
- },
- {
- "limit": 15,
- "query": "technology",
- "url": "https://feeds.bloomberg.com/markets/news.rss"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "url": "https://feeds.bbci.co.uk/news/world/rss.xml"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 15,
+ "query": "technology",
+ "url": "https://feeds.bloomberg.com/markets/news.rss"
+ }
+]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "url": "https://feeds.reuters.com/reuters/worldNews"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 15,
+ "query": "technology",
+ "url": "https://feeds.bloomberg.com/markets/news.rss"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral info: the tool fetches directly and falls back to a proxy if blocked, and normalizes the feed. No contradictions.
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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 feed-fetching tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and usage adequately. It could optionally detail 'normalize', but the current content is sufficient.
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 descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3.
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 specifies the verb 'fetch and normalize' and the resource 'any RSS / Atom / RDF feed by URL', clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like 'list_feeds' and 'read_feed'.
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 advises using 'list_feeds first for curated sources', giving explicit context for when to choose this tool. It also mentions the CF-robust fallback behavior, but lacks explicit 'do not use when' conditions.
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.