inoreader-mcp

Find a feed replacement

find_feed_replacement

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find a working replacement for a broken subscription feed URL by checking redirects, advertised/conventional paths, and comparing candidates with stored posts; returns confidence and recommendation.

Instructions

Find a working feed for a subscription whose feed address is broken. Checks where the old address redirects, the feeds the site advertises (), and conventional feed paths, then compares each candidate with the posts Inoreader stored from the old feed. confidence 'high' means the candidate carries posts from the old feed or the old address redirects to it; 'medium' means same site but no shared posts; 'low' is anything else. recommended is the best high-confidence candidate, or null. Makes NO changes -- apply one with replace_feed. Costs 2 Zone 1 requests, plus up to 35 public-site fetch operations (each up to 6 HTTP requests including redirects, not Zone 1 API calls; shared process concurrency is capped at 4). Base costs exclude safe-read retries (up to 4 attempts, each counted); honor cached status/cooldown. Never blindly replay uncertain writes. See inoreader://usage for limits, URI examples and prompts.

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": {
      "stream_id": "<stream_id>"
    },
    "name": "find_feed_replacement"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`stream_id`	Yes	Stream ID of the subscription, e.g. feed/https://example.com/rss

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.6.1Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing cost (2 Zone 1 requests plus up to 35 public-site fetches, each up to 6 HTTP requests, concurrency capped at 4), retry semantics for safe reads, and the instruction to honor cached status/cooldown. It also defines the meaning of confidence 'high'/'medium'/'low' and the recommended field, which no annotation conveys.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose and candidate sources, then confidence definitions, then cost. Dense but well ordered; the closing 'Never blindly replay uncertain writes' and usage-URI pointer are somewhat boilerplate for a read-only tool but still earn their place as safety guidance.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining the confidence tiers and the recommended field an agent must interpret. Combined with cost/retry disclosure, an agent has everything needed to call it and act on results correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter already has a description with an example. The prose only implies that stream_id must refer to an existing subscription with a broken feed, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the triggering condition: 'Find a working feed for a subscription whose feed address is broken.' It also enumerates the three sources it checks (redirect, advertised <link rel=alternate>, conventional paths), which distinguishes it clearly from siblings like analyze_feeds and replace_feed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The when-to-use condition is explicit (broken feed address for an existing subscription) and the boundary against the sibling write tool is explicit: 'Makes NO changes -- apply one with replace_feed.' The confidence-tier explanation further tells the agent how to act on the result (pick recommended vs. inspect lower tiers).

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