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. It discloses a cost ('Costs 1 Zone 1 request'), which is useful behavioral context (e.g., rate limit implications). However, it doesn't cover other traits like pagination, error handling, or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a mutation-free tool.

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 and adds a cost note in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the purpose and cost but lacks details on output format (e.g., what 'metadata' includes) and usage context, which could help an agent invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter ('folder'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, resulting in the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage without extra value.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all RSS feed subscriptions') with specific attributes ('folders, URLs, and metadata'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_folders_and_tags' or 'analyze_feeds', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_folders_and_tags' or 'analyze_feeds'. It mentions a cost ('Costs 1 Zone 1 request'), which hints at usage considerations, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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