FeedKeeper RSS/Atom reader and remote MCP Server

Dismiss the current newspaper edition

dismiss_edition

Mark the active curated edition as dismissed so it no longer appears active. Pass a UUID requestId and the current expectedRevision to detect conflicts before applying the change.

Instructions

Explicitly dismisses the current curated edition so it is no longer shown as active. Requires a UUID requestId and the current revision as expectedRevision for conflict detection. Requires write scope. Returns { ok: true } on success.

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": {
      "requestId": "<requestId>",
      "expectedRevision": "<expectedRevision>"
    },
    "name": "dismiss_edition"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`requestId`	Yes	Unique idempotency UUID for this dismiss operation
`expectedRevision`	Yes	The current edition revision number obtained from get_edition

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.36.4Nov 9, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / expectedRevision / description
```
Added value: +"The current edition revision number obtained from get_edition"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / requestId / description
```
Added value: +"Unique idempotency UUID for this dismiss operation"
```
First observedv0.36.3Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does supply useful context: write scope is required, expectedRevision enables conflict detection, and the success payload is { ok: true }. However, it never says whether a dismissal is reversible, what happens to an already-published edition, or how a revision mismatch is surfaced to the caller, which are the key behavioral facts for a mutation.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the effect, then prerequisites, then auth, then return value. Efficient, with a minor redundancy in 'Explicitly dismisses' where the adverb does no work.

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?

Covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly: required inputs, the auth scope, the source of the revision value, and the return shape. The remaining gap is failure and reversibility semantics, which matter for a mutating call but are secondary for invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the idempotency UUID and where expectedRevision comes from. The description adds only the phrase 'for conflict detection', which clarifies the intent of expectedRevision but adds little beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('dismisses') plus the target resource ('the current curated edition') and the resulting state change ('no longer shown as active'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_edition and publish_edition without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is only implied: the reader infers it should be called after get_edition to obtain the revision. There is no explicit statement of when to dismiss versus leave an edition active, and no exclusions or alternative tools named.

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