Edit an existing feed post on MyDramaList, including its message, tags, spoiler flag, and attachments. Requires authentication and an explicit user request to modify feed data.
Feeds: edit. Requires host-configured MyDramaList authentication. Changes data on MyDramaList; use only for an explicit user request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag_id | No | ||
| feed_id | Yes | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| spoiler | No | ||
| embed_id | No | ||
| tag_type | No | ||
| attachments | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/non-idempotent/networked profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: host-configured authentication is required, and the mutation is consequential enough to gate behind an explicit user request.
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 short sentences, no filler, with the operational warning front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity trades away the parameter and scoping detail the tool actually needs.
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?
For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotation coverage of parameters, the description only covers auth and the read/write gate. It says nothing about what an edit overwrites, whether fields are required or replace vs merge, or what the response returns – large gaps remain.
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 0% and all 7 parameters (feed_id, message, tag_id, tag_type, spoiler, embed_id, attachments) are undocumented in both schema and description. With required params like feed_id and message and opaque free-form fields (embed_id, attachments), the description provides no semantics at all to compensate.
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?
"Feeds: edit" names both a resource (feeds) and a verb (edit), which distinguishes it from the unchanged siblings mdl_feeds_create, mdl_feeds_delete, mdl_feeds_hide and mdl_feeds_like. It stops short of stating what gets edited (message, tags, spoilers, attachments), so the agent knows the operation class but not the editable surface.
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?
It gives one real runtime rule – 'use only for an explicit user request' – which directly shapes invocation decisions for a mutating tool. It never contrasts against alternatives such as mdl_feeds_fetch/get (read) or mdl_feeds_create (new post), so routing beyond 'only when the user asked' is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.