list_feeds_toolRetrieve all feeds with unread counts, optionally filtered by category ID, to monitor which RSS/Atom sources have new entries.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals only that unread counts are included and implicitly that it is a read; it says nothing about ordering, pagination, volume limits, or whether the category filter changes the shape of results.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though the sparseness arguably under-serves a tool with an available filter parameter.
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 needn't be explained, and the tool has only one optional parameter. Still, for a discovery-style list tool with no annotations, the description omits any filtering or usage context the agent would need to route correctly among 17 siblings.
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% ('Filter by category ID (optional)'), so the schema already documents the sole parameter. The description adds no filtering semantics or format detail beyond that, 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?
Clear verb+resource ('List all feeds') plus the notable payload detail of unread counts. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_feed_tool or list_entries_tool, leaving the agent to infer the difference from names.
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 when-to-use guidance whatsoever: no mention of when to prefer this over get_feed_tool (single feed) or list_entries_tool (entries). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.