Skip to main content
Glama
isiahw1

mcp-server-bing-webmaster

get_feeds

Extract RSS and Atom feeds from any website to monitor content updates and integrate with feed readers or content aggregation systems.

Instructions

Get all RSS/Atom feeds for a site.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
site_urlYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function decorated with @mcp.tool that implements the get_feeds tool. It takes a site_url, makes an async request to the Bing API's GetFeeds endpoint, and returns the processed list of feeds.
    @mcp.tool(name="get_feeds", description="Get all RSS/Atom feeds for a site.")
    async def get_feeds(
        site_url: Annotated[str, "The URL of the site"]
    ) -> List[Dict[str, Any]]:
        """
        Get all RSS/Atom feeds for a site.
    
        Args:
            site_url: The URL of the site
    
        Returns:
            List of feeds
        """
        async with api:
            feeds = await api._make_request(f"GetFeeds?siteUrl={site_url}")
            return api._ensure_type_field(feeds, "Feed")
  • Type annotations defining the input schema (site_url as annotated string) and output schema (list of dictionaries).
        site_url: Annotated[str, "The URL of the site"]
    ) -> List[Dict[str, Any]]:
  • MCP tool registration decorator specifying the name and description for the get_feeds tool.
    @mcp.tool(name="get_feeds", description="Get all RSS/Atom feeds for a site.")
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' feeds, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or potential rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose efficiently, making it easy to parse and understand at a glance without unnecessary elaboration.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and poor parameter documentation, it lacks details on authentication, error handling, or operational limits, leaving room for improvement in completeness for reliable agent use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, with one parameter 'site_url' undocumented. The description adds minimal context by implying 'site_url' is needed to specify the site, but doesn't clarify the expected format (e.g., full URL, domain), validation rules, or examples. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameter meaning ambiguous.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all RSS/Atom feeds for a site'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_feed_details' (which presumably gets details of a specific feed) by focusing on retrieving all feeds for a site. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other feed-related tools beyond naming.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with sibling tools like 'get_feed_details' or 'remove_feed'. Without such context, the agent must infer usage based on tool names alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/isiahw1/mcp-server-bing-webmaster'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server