inoreader-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool returns sorted data (by count descending) and has a cost implication ('Costs 1 Zone 1 request'), which is critical for rate limit awareness. However, it doesn't mention potential errors, response format, or whether it's idempotent, 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 in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and cost information. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the tool, the second guides usage, and the third discloses cost. It's efficient with zero wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, sorting, and cost. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., whether it's a list of objects with feed names and counts), which could help the agent interpret results. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by clarifying the scope ('for all feeds and folders') and sorting behavior, which goes beyond the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameters exist, and the description provides useful context.

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 specific action ('Get unread article counts'), resource ('for all feeds and folders'), and scope ('sorted by count descending'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_articles' (which retrieves article content) or 'mark_all_read' (which modifies read status), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use this first to understand what needs attention.' This tells the agent when to invoke this tool (as an initial diagnostic step) and implies it should be used before tools like 'get_articles' or 'mark_all_read' that act on specific articles. It effectively positions this tool in the workflow.

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