inoreader-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the cost ('Costs 1 Zone 1 request per page'), pagination details ('max 100 articles per page'), and filtering capabilities. However, it does not cover aspects like error handling or response format, leaving some gaps.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key features and behavioral details in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds value (e.g., filtering options and cost information) with zero waste, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, filtering, pagination, and cost. However, it lacks details on the return format (e.g., article structure) and error cases, which would be beneficial for an agent invoking the tool without an output schema.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning filtering and pagination context, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Fetch articles') and the resources ('from a feed, folder, tag, or all items'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_article_ids (which returns IDs only) or get_unread_counts (which returns counts). It specifies the scope of retrieval, making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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?

The description implies usage by mentioning filtering capabilities and pagination, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_article_ids or analyze_feeds. It provides some context (e.g., filtering by status) but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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