inoreader-mcp

Reassign feeds

reassign_feeds

DestructiveIdempotent

Move multiple feeds from a source folder to specified destination folders in bulk, using stream IDs and reporting any moves that remain unverified.

Instructions

Move feeds from one folder to another in bulk. Pass from_folder and a map of {new_folder: [stream_id, ...]}. Base cost is 1 Zone 2 request per assignment (combined add/remove), plus 1-3 Zone 1 verification reads. Reconciliation may add 2 Zone 2 requests per shortfall. Preflight requires worst-case headroom; read retries cost extra. A feed counts as moved only when the subscription list shows it in the destination AND no longer in the source; anything short of that is retried with the add and remove split into separate calls, and reported as unverified with isError set if it still does not land. Base costs exclude safe-read retries (up to 4 attempts, each counted); honor cached status/cooldown. Never blindly replay uncertain writes. See inoreader://usage for limits, URI examples and prompts.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "from_folder": "<from_folder>",
      "assignments": "<assignments>"
    },
    "name": "reassign_feeds"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`assignments`	Yes	Map of new folder name to array of stream IDs to move there
`from_folder`	Yes	Folder name to remove all feeds from

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`failed`	Yes
`rounds`	Yes
`intended`	Yes
`verified`	Yes
`unverified`	Yes
`verification`	Yes
`not_attempted`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.6.1Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag the operation as destructive, idempotent and open-world, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: cost accounting per assignment, 1-3 verification reads, worst-case headroom at preflight, split add/remove retry on partial success, and isError when a move stays unverified. The success criterion ('in destination AND no longer in source') is exactly the kind of behavioral detail 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and argument shape are front-loaded, which is good, but the body is a dense run-on mixing Zone 1/Zone 2 cost jargon, preflight headroom, retry counting and cache cooldown. Every clause is behavioral rather than filler, yet the packing makes it hard to scan and forces a jump to inoreader://usage for terms like 'Zone 2'.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description only needed to cover the tricky semantics, which it largely does: verification, partial-failure handling, retry policy and preflight cost. The residual gap is that cost units and limits are delegated to an external resource rather than summarized.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so this is baseline territory. The description restates the shape ('from_folder and a map of {new_folder: [stream_id, ...]}'), which usefully clarifies the direction of the mapping but repeats rather than extends the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb and resource plus scope: 'Move feeds from one folder to another in bulk.' That distinguishes it from single-item siblings such as manage_subscription or rename_folder by the word 'bulk', though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The 'in bulk' framing and the from_folder-to-many-folders shape implicitly route the agent here rather than to per-subscription tools, and it gives a hard rule ('Never blindly replay uncertain writes'). It never names an alternative tool or states an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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