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 the mutation behavior ('Mark as read'), the cost implication ('Costs 1 Zone 2 request'), and the scope ('all articles'). However, it doesn't mention permissions, side effects, or response format, leaving some behavioral 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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and scope, the second adds critical cost information. It's front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action, scope, and cost, but lacks details on permissions, response format, or error handling. Given the 2-parameter schema with full coverage, it's mostly complete but could benefit from more behavioral context.

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 already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining 'stream_id' formats or 'before' date handling. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Mark all articles as read'), the target resource ('in a feed or folder'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_unread_counts' (which only reads) or 'manage_tags' (which modifies tags). It provides a complete verb+resource+scope statement.

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 context by specifying it applies to feeds or folders, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'manage_tags' for tagging or 'get_unread_counts' for checking status. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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