delete_feed_toolRemove a feed and all its entries from the RSS/Atom reader by specifying the feed ID. Use it to clean up subscriptions and the stored articles tied to them.
Remove a feed and all its entries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feed_id | Yes | Feed ID to delete |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Input schema / properties / feed_id / minimumAdded value: +1v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the destructive cascade ('and all its entries'), which goes beyond the schema, but it omits irreversibility, permission requirements, and confirmation semantics for a permanently destructive operation.
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?
One short sentence with the operation and its main side effect front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.
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 need not be explained, and one parameter at full coverage is documented. However, for a destructive tool with no annotations, the description leaves the agent without warnings on irreversibility or required permissions.
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 description coverage is 100% with a single required feed_id already documented as 'Feed ID to delete'. The description adds no format, valid-range, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (Remove) and resource (a feed), plus the cascading scope (all its entries). Clear enough to distinguish from list_feeds_tool or add_feed_tool, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with.
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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., delete_category_tool, or archiving a feed), no prerequisites, and no warning about when it should not be called. Usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.