Web3 Content MCP Server

add_rss_source

Add a new RSS feed source to the web3 content monitoring system, specifying its name, URL, language, and category to begin tracking relevant blockchain and crypto updates.

Instructions

Add a new RSS feed source

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "add_rss_source"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	RSS feed URL
`name`	Yes	Source name
`language`	No	Language code (default: en)
`source_group`	No	Group: news, ethereum, vc, defi, nft, etc.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Add' (a mutation) but does not mention idempotency, validation, duplicate handling, auth requirements, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes to meaning, making it exceptionally concise while remaining clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is a simple create operation, but there is no output schema and the description does not indicate what the response will be (e.g., created object, confirmation, error format). It also lacks coverage of edge cases like duplicate URLs or required permission levels, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters (url, name, language, source_group). The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents each field.

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 'Add a new RSS feed source' uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('new RSS feed source'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like remove_rss_source or list_rss_sources. The intent is unmistakable and immediately actionable.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use remove_rss_source or fetch_rss_articles. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues beyond the straightforward action.

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