Fetch RSS articles with filters for folder, feed, read status, starred items, and pagination. Optionally trim content to avoid overwhelming the model context.
Fetch articles with various filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says "fetch", which implies a read operation, but it does not describe pagination behavior, continuation token semantics, default read-state filtering, or any side effects or limitations. There is no contradiction, but there is also very little disclosure.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action efficiently. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but as conciseness/structure it is clean and well-organized.
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?
The tool appears to be a complex filterable list endpoint with 8 nested parameters, pagination support, and a read-state toggle, yet the description gives none of that context. It does not mention continuation, ordering, folder/feed filtering, starred-only mode, or the trim_content behavior. Even though an output schema exists, the description is not sufficient for an agent to safely invoke this tool among many similar sibling tools.
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?
With the top-level schema showing 0% description coverage and the description adding no parameter-level meaning beyond "various filters", the description does not compensate for the missing top-level parameter semantics. While the nested schema contains field descriptions, the tool description itself contributes almost nothing to understanding how to structure the required "params" object or what filters are available.
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 says exactly what it does: "Fetch articles" with a general mechanism, "various filters". This is a clear verb+resource statement. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like freshrss_get_headlines or freshrss_get_article_detail, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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 use this tool versus freshrss_get_headlines, freshrss_get_article_detail, or freshrss_get_diverse_digest. The description names no alternatives, no exclusions, and no conditions that would help an agent choose between the many fetching tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.