Fetch and parse RSS 2.0 or Atom feeds into structured articles with title, link, description, author, publish date, and categories for syndication reading.
Fetch and parse any RSS 2.0 or Atom feed. Returns structured articles with title, link, description, author, publish date, and categories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.61Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the returned article fields (title, link, description, author, publish date, categories), but says nothing about network behavior, error handling for invalid feeds, or how the limit parameter truncates results.
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, zero padding: the action is front-loaded and the return shape follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the return-field list is genuinely valuable, and no annotations exist to carry behavioral load. However, for a 2-parameter tool with one undocumented parameter and no usage context, the description leaves real gaps an agent must guess at.
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 0% and the description never mentions either parameter. The word 'any' mildly implies the url parameter accepts arbitrary feed URLs, but the limit parameter's meaning (max articles? pagination?) is completely undocumented in both schema and description.
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?
Names a specific verb pair (fetch and parse) and a specific resource (RSS 2.0 / Atom feeds), which separates it from content-scraping siblings like netintel_page_extract or netintel_sitemap_parser. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative sibling, so it lands at a clear-but-not-differentiated 4.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over netintel_page_extract, netintel_og_scraper, or netintel_sitemap_parser, and no mention of prerequisites or failure modes for non-feed URLs. Usage is only implied by the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.