read_feedRead a curated international / world-news 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": "bbc-world"
- },
- {
- "feed": "reuters-international",
- "limit": 10,
- "query": "climate"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "bbc-world"
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "guardian-world",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "US"
+ }
+]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "bbc-world"
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "reuters-international",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "climate"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them by disclosing the normalized return shape (title, link, published, summary), which no structured field provides.
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 tight sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the primary purpose and the id provenance before the optional filter. Nothing could be cut without losing 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?
There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned item fields. With annotations covering safety and the schema covering all three parameters, the only real gap is the missing differentiation from fetch_feed.
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 feed, limit and query are already documented with their formats and defaults. The description broadly restates the feed-id source and keyword filtering without adding syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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+resource: reading a curated international/world-news feed by id, and names list_feeds as the id source. It is clear what it does, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling fetch_feed, which an agent could easily confuse with it.
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?
It implies usage by pointing to list_feeds for obtaining the id and mentioning an optional keyword filter, but gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and does not address when to prefer fetch_feed instead. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
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.