Fetch a Cricinfo public RSS channel by its feed or channel selection. The response contains normalized channel metadata and feed items; use it to read updates from a specific Cricinfo feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and reach are covered. The description adds only a light note that the response is 'normalized channel metadata and feed items,' which is largely restated by the existing output schema.
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 with the action front-loaded. The second sentence's description of the response is partly redundant given the output schema, costing a little.
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?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. But with one required parameter at 0% coverage and a description that mischaracterizes it as a 'feed or channel selection,' the definition leaves an agent unsure what to pass in url.
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?
The single parameter is 'url' with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description instead talks about 'feed or channel selection,' which does not map to the actual url argument. This mismatch actively obscures what value belongs in the field rather than clarifying it.
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 (fetch) and resource (a Cricinfo public RSS channel), which clearly separates it from siblings like cricinfo_news or cricinfo_story. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, so it stops short of a 5.
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 closing clause 'use it to read updates from a specific Cricinfo feed' implies context, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or comparison to alternatives such as cricinfo_news. Usage is only inferable.
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.
