Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rss-publisher-mcp

rss-publisher-mcp

by bigbatmanorg
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_entry

Fetch a complete, canonical RSS entry by its immutable ID to retrieve full entry details for verification or processing.

Instructions

Return the complete canonical FeedEntry by immutable ID.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "entry_id": "<entry_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entry_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation ('Return') but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, does not modify data, or require specific permissions. It also does not mention error behavior if the ID is invalid.

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?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary purpose, with no filler words.

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?

For a simple read operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. However, it lacks explicit side-effect disclosure (though likely read-only) and error conditions, which are minor given the simplicity.

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?

The schema provides only the name 'entry_id' with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by calling it an 'immutable ID', clarifying its nature, but it does not provide format, examples, or constraints.

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 states a specific action ('Return'), a clear resource ('FeedEntry'), and identifies the key as an 'immutable ID'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on feeds, assets, or lists of entries.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_active_entries or get_feed. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools