TrendRadar MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_rss_feeds_status

Retrieve status and data statistics for configured RSS feeds, including available dates and today's item counts per feed.

Instructions

获取 RSS 源状态信息

查看当前配置的 RSS 源及其数据统计信息。

Returns: JSON格式的 RSS 源状态，包含： - available_dates: 有 RSS 数据的日期列表 - total_dates: 总日期数 - today_feeds: 今日各 RSS 源的数据统计 - {feed_id}: { name, item_count } - generated_at: 生成时间

Examples: - get_rss_feeds_status() # 查看所有 RSS 源状态

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_rss_feeds_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv6.10.0Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description conveys that this is a read-only status view through '查看' and details of generated statistics. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, whether data is cached, or how it behaves when no feeds exist, so the burden is only partially met.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is structured and front-loaded with purpose, followed by a compact Returns list and an example. The opening line '获取 RSS 源状态信息' is mildly redundant with the name and second sentence, but overall there is no wasted bulk.

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?

For a no-parameter status tool, the description is largely complete: it states scope, return structure, and an example invocation. It could be more complete by explicitly distinguishing when to use this over sibling tools like get_system_status or list_available_dates.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, and the example get_rss_feeds_status() confirms no arguments are required. With schema coverage at 100% and no params, the description adds no parameter semantics but none are needed.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a clear verb ('获取/查看') and a specific resource (RSS feeds status and their data statistics), and the Returns section defines exactly what is included. It differentiates from siblings like get_system_status/get_storage_status by scoping to configured RSS sources and their stats.

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?

It gives clear context: use this to view currently configured RSS sources and their data statistics. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is specific enough.

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