Skip to main content
Glama

RSS Keyword Monitor

by io.github.telemarkdigital-publisher

RSS, Atom, and RDF keyword monitor

uplifted_novice_vbl--rss-keyword-monitor-only-new

Run the Apify RSS monitor for scheduled keyword, regex, and exclusion alerts across RSS, Atom, and RDF feeds. Returns only new matching feed items by default and can POST to a webhook.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
feedsNoRSS, Atom, or RDF feed URLs to monitor.
onlyNewNoWhen true, return only items not previously delivered by this saved Task.
keywordsNoCase-insensitive keywords or phrases. Empty returns every new item.
resetStateNoReset the saved seen-set and HTTP validators once, then turn it off.
webhookUrlNoOptional webhook endpoint that receives a summary and up to 50 newest matched items.
dedupWindowNoDays an item remains in the seen-set before it can be delivered again.
matchFieldsNoFeed item fields to search: title, description, content, and categories.
excludeTermsNoCase-insensitive terms that remove matched items before delivery and billing.
regexPatternsNoCase-insensitive regular expressions, OR-matched with keywords.
includeContentNoInclude full content:encoded HTML from the feed when present.
maxItemsPerRunNoMaximum feed items delivered and charged in one run.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds some behavior by noting the default only-new behavior and webhook POST capability, though these mostly paraphrase schema fields. It does not mention state reset behavior, dedup windows, or billing implications, but the annotations already provide a basic safety profile.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no redundant words; it front-loads the core purpose, then states the key default and a notable side effect. Every phrase earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 11 optional parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description captures the essential use case and default behavior. An agent can correctly invoke the tool with the schema alone, and the description adds sufficient high-level context for scheduling and alerting.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has meaningful descriptions (e.g., feeds, onlyNew, keywords, resetState, webhookUrl). The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Run the Apify RSS monitor' for keyword, regex, and exclusion alerts across RSS, Atom, and RDF feeds. It also clarifies the default behavior ('Returns only new matching feed items') and optional webhook delivery, making the tool's purpose clear even without sibling comparisons.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: it is a scheduled, ongoing monitor that filters RSS/Atom/RDF feed items by keywords and regex. There are no sibling tools to distinguish against, and no explicit exclusions, but the use case is effectively conveyed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All RSS Keyword Monitor toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no chance of confusing it with another tool. The description clearly explains the tool's purpose despite the unusual name.

Naming Consistency2/5

The single tool name uses a random prefix and hyphens, and does not follow a verb_noun pattern. It is readably descriptive after the prefix, but the overall name is unconventional and not typical of a well-designed tool set.

Tool Count4/5

One tool is below the typical 3-15 range, but for the narrow purpose of RSS keyword monitoring, this single comprehensive tool can handle the core workflow. The count is slightly under but reasonable for the stated scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool covers the essential monitoring workflow: running the monitor, filtering by keywords/regex/exclusions, returning new items, and posting to a webhook. There is no explicit management of monitor configurations, but the tool parameters seem sufficient for the primary use case.

Resources