list_customer_intel_feedsRetrieves private intelligence feeds and optionally a page of items for a specific feed. Requires intel:read permission.
Lists private intelligence feeds and, optionally, a page of items for one feed. Requires intel:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Item/feed page size | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| feed_id | No | Optional feed UUID. When provided, include feed items. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the auth requirement and the conditional behavior where a feed_id switches the result from a feed list to a feed's items. It does not describe ordering, pagination defaults, or response shape.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary behavior and followed by the permission prerequisite. No filler and nothing redundant with the title.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-shape burden, and it does indicate that results may be feeds or a page of items. Minor gaps remain around pagination defaults and item-vs-feed response structure, but for a three-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient.
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 coverage is 100% and each of limit, offset, and feed_id is documented in the schema itself. The description's 'optionally, a page of items for one feed' hints at feed_id's effect, but adds no syntax or boundary detail beyond what the schema already supplies, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb (Lists) plus resource (private intelligence feeds) with the extra scope of 'optionally, a page of items for one feed'. This clearly separates it from the sibling mutators manage_customer_intel_feed and manage_customer_intel_item, though it doesn't name them explicitly.
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?
States the required scope ('Requires intel:read'), which is real usage guidance, but never says when to choose this list tool over the manage_* siblings or the upsert tool. Usage is implied by verb/annotation rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.