Fetch and cache the full extracted article body for a Feedbin entry using its entry ID, so MCP clients can read complete content instead of partial summaries.
Fetch extracted full content for an entry via its extracted_content_url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entry_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about return format (HTML vs plain text), failure behavior when extraction is unavailable, auth requirements, or whether the call is a read-only fetch. For a network-backed extraction endpoint this is a meaningful gap.
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?
A single tight sentence with no padding, front-loaded on the action. It is efficient, though brevity comes at the cost of the clarity issues noted elsewhere.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of truth, and it leaves out what the extracted content looks like, how errors surface, and how this differs from sibling content-retrieval tools. Inadequate for the role it must play here.
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 0% for the single required entry_id parameter, so the description should explain it. Instead it refers to 'extracted_content_url', a field that is not the parameter at all, which risks confusing the agent about what to pass.
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 and resource: fetching extracted full content for an entry. It distinguishes itself from plain entry retrieval (feedbin_get_entry) by emphasizing 'extracted full content', though it never names a sibling explicitly. The phrase 'via its extracted_content_url' is slightly off since the tool actually takes an entry_id.
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?
No statement of when to use this instead of feedbin_get_entry or feedbin_cached_entry, which are the obvious alternatives in this large sibling set. The agent must infer that this is for full-text extraction rather than raw entry metadata.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.