list_feeds_toolList all RSS/Atom feeds with unread counts to track subscriptions. Optionally filter by category ID to focus on specific groups.
List all feeds with unread counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category_id | No | Filter by category ID (optional) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Input schema / properties / category_id / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation already declares this is a safe read operation, so the description need not carry the safety profile. It adds that unread counts are returned, which is behavioral value, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or filtering behavior beyond the schema.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and the key payload (unread counts). No wasted words.
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 an output schema, a fully documented parameter, and readOnly annotations, the definition is nearly complete. The remaining gap is that it does not route the agent relative to the many sibling list/get tools.
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% and the single optional category_id is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail 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+resource ("List all feeds") and adds the useful detail that unread counts are included. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_feed_tool or list_categories_tool, so the agent must infer the collection-vs-single distinction.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives such as get_feed_tool (single feed) or search_entries_tool. The agent must decide purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.