inoreader-mcp

Get article content

get_article_content

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch full HTML content for specific article IDs, especially after listing or searching articles, to read complete articles beyond summaries.

Instructions

Get full HTML content for specific articles by ID. Use after get_articles or search_articles to read full content. Costs 1 Zone 1 request. 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": {
      "article_ids": "<article_ids>"
    },
    "name": "get_article_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`article_ids`	Yes	Article IDs to fetch full content for (max 20)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.6.1Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotency, and the description adds real context beyond them: cost accounting (1 Zone 1 request), retry behavior (up to 4 counted attempts), and the need to respect cached status/cooldown. This is meaningful operational disclosure for a read tool.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Front-loaded and dense, but 'Never blindly replay uncertain writes' is aimed at mutation tools and reads as noise on a readOnly, idempotent tool, and the trailing resource pointer adds a second thing to parse. Every other sentence earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, sequencing, cost, retry/cooldown semantics, and points to a resource URI for limits and examples. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 documents the max-20 constraint and ID type. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, so it sits at the baseline.

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 ('Get full HTML content for specific articles by ID') and distinguishes the output from sibling list tools like get_articles and search_articles by emphasizing 'full content'.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly sequences the tool after get_articles or search_articles, which is exactly the workflow an agent needs. No explicit 'do not use when' or cost-comparison against alternatives such as get_saved_web_pages, which keeps it short of a 5.

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