List entries from a specific Feedbin feed with pagination and filters for read, starred, and date; HTML content is truncated to 500 characters for concise results.
List entries for a feed. HTML content/summary truncated to 500 chars.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| read | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| feed_id | Yes | ||
| starred | No | ||
| per_page | No | ||
| include_original | No | ||
| include_enclosure | No | ||
| include_content_diff | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait: HTML content and summary are truncated to 500 chars, which affects how the agent should consume results. But it says nothing about pagination behavior (page/per_page), default read-state filtering, or the fact that this is a non-mutating list call.
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 resource statement front-loaded and the truncation caveat immediately after. No wasted words, though the brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than discipline.
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?
A 10-parameter listing tool with no annotations and no output schema needs far more than two sentences. The truncation note is the only behavioral detail; nothing explains filtering, pagination, or return shape for a tool whose surface area is this large.
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?
Ten parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. Filters like read, starred, since, mode, include_original, include_enclosure, and include_content_diff are entirely undocumented anywhere, leaving the agent to guess at semantics and formats.
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 ('List entries for a feed'), and the 'for a feed' qualifier implicitly separates it from the sibling feedbin_list_entries. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or any other alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus feedbin_list_entries, feedbin_list_unread, feedbin_list_starred, or feedbin_list_recently_read, all of which overlap heavily. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of how filtering options affect the choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.