Hopi

Product feed generator

hopi_product_feed_generator

Read-onlyIdempotent

Turn product rows into a platform-valid product feed: Meta (Facebook and Instagram) RSS 2.0, Google Merchant RSS 2.0, Atom 1.0 or generic RSS 2.0, using the g: namespace where the platform expects it. Each row is validated (required fields, price as 12.99 GBP, availability and condition values, http links, unique ids); rows that fail are skipped and listed. Returns the XML, counts and errors. Source: https://hopi.co.uk/product-feed-generator/

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`link`	No	Shop URL for the feed header (optional, must start with http:// or https://).
`rows`	Yes	Product rows keyed by feed field name. Required per row: id, title, description, availability, condition, price, link, image_link, brand. Optional: sale_price, gtin, mpn, item_group_id, google_product_category, product_type, color, size, gender, age_group, shipping_weight, additional_image_link, quantity_to_sell_on_facebook.
`title`	No	Feed title. Default Product feed.
`currency`	No	ISO 4217 currency code for prices, for example GBP. Default GBP.
`platform`	No	Feed format. Default meta.
`description`	No	Feed description (optional).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`xml`	Yes
`items`	Yes
`errors`	Yes
`skipped`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`currency`	Yes
`platform`	Yes
`rowsRead`	Yes
`source_url`	Yes	The tool's page on hopi.co.uk (cite or open to check the figure)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 20, 2026

addedOutput schema / required

Added value: +[
+  "currency",
+  "errors",
+  "items",
+  "platform",
+  "rowsRead",
+  "skipped",
+  "source_url",
+  "summary",
+  "xml"
+]

First observedSep 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: row-level validation rules, skipped-and-listed failures, and return contents (XML, counts, and errors). 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact and well-structured: main purpose in the first sentence, validation behavior in the second, return behavior in the third, plus a source link. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description covers supported formats, platform-specific namespace behavior, validation rules, failure handling, and return values. Combined with a rich input schema and existing output schema, it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds extra semantics for row values, such as price format '12.99 GBP', availability and condition validation, http link requirements, and unique id constraints, which go beyond the schema's field-name-level documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's action: turning product rows into a platform-valid product feed. It enumerates the supported output formats (Meta, Google Merchant, Atom, generic RSS) and mentions the g: namespace, making the tool distinct from the many sibling generators.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when product rows need to be converted into a structured product feed for a specific platform. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool serves this purpose, so the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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

All Hopi tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?