inoreader-mcp

Get saved items

get_saved_items

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a deduplicated, bounded set of starred articles, saved web pages, and Keep-tagged items with saved-via details, so you can review saved content and resume streams via get_articles.

Instructions

Get a bounded union of starred articles, saved web pages, and Keep-tagged items, deduplicated with saved_via membership from the fetched pages. Reads up to max_pages_per_collection (default 1, max 10) pages of 100 per collection: 3-30 Zone 1 requests before read retries. total_count is the fetched union, NOT an account-wide total unless complete=true; continuations and per-collection errors disclose partial coverage. Resume individual streams with get_articles. Preflights the maximum base cost against known remaining quota; unknown quota is not assumed unlimited. See inoreader://usage for budgets, template examples and prompts.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_saved_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`compact`	No	Compact metadata (default true).
`max_pages_per_collection`	No	Maximum 100-item pages per collection (default 1). Total base cost is at most 3 times this bound.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	Yes
`items`	Yes
`complete`	Yes
`collections`	Yes
`total_count`	Yes
`by_collection`	Yes
`unavailable_collections`	No

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?

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive traits, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: request cost ('3-30 Zone 1 requests before read retries'), a quota preflight that does not assume unlimited budget, disclosure of continuations and per-collection errors, and the caveat that total_count is a fetched union rather than an account-wide total. That is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core scope before pagination, cost, and quota caveats, and nearly every sentence carries decision-relevant information. The density is high and terms like 'Zone 1 requests' and 'saved_via membership' assume domain familiarity, which costs it the top score.

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 multi-collection aggregation tool with an output schema, the description covers what matters: bounded pagination, cost and quota preflight, partial-coverage caveats, and how to resume per-stream. Return-value detail is correctly delegated to the output schema, and the pointer to inoreader://usage covers budget documentation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: pages hold 100 items, default is 1 with max 10, and total base cost is 'at most 3 times this bound,' which connects max_pages_per_collection to the cost model in a way the schema does not. The compact flag is left to the schema, which is acceptable given its coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource set: a 'bounded union of starred articles, saved web pages, and Keep-tagged items, deduplicated with saved_via membership.' It explicitly names the component collections, which lets an agent distinguish this aggregate tool from siblings like get_saved_web_pages, get_articles, and get_article_ids without consulting their schemas.

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?

It gives clear operational context: use get_articles to 'resume individual streams,' and it flags that total_count is partial unless complete=true. What's missing is an explicit statement of when to prefer this over the sibling get_saved_web_pages or plain get_articles for a single-collection read, so the routing guidance is strong but not fully comparative.

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