FeedKeeper RSS/Atom reader and remote MCP Server

Import feeds from OPML XML

import_opml

Import feed subscriptions and folders from an OPML 2.0 XML string for the current user without overwriting existing subscriptions; returns imported, failed, and folders-created counts.

Instructions

Imports feed subscriptions and folders from an OPML 2.0 XML string for the current user. Existing subscriptions are preserved. Requires write scope. Returns { imported: number, failed: number, foldersCreated: number }.

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": {
      "opml": "<opml>"
    },
    "name": "import_opml"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`opml`	Yes	The OPML 2.0 XML document string to parse and import

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.36.4Nov 9, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / opml / description

Previous value: -"The OPML XML content to import"New value: +"The OPML 2.0 XML document string to parse and import"

First observedv0.36.3Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the required write scope, states that existing subscriptions are preserved (merge, non-destructive semantics), and describes the response counters. It leaves gaps around partial-failure behavior, size limits, and duplicate handling beyond simple preservation, which keeps it below a 5.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then preservation semantics, then auth requirement, then return shape. Zero redundant wording and the most important scoping constraint is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: input format, auth scope, non-destructive merge behavior, and an inline return shape that substitutes for the missing output schema. Only partial-failure semantics and input size/validation limits are absent.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains it as an OPML 2.0 XML document to parse and import. The description's mention of 'OPML 2.0 XML string' largely restates the schema, so it adds little new meaning; the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb (imports), resource (feed subscriptions and folders), input format (OPML 2.0 XML string), and scope (current user). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling export_opml and from single-item subscribe_feed/create_folder 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?

Bulk-import usage is strongly implied by 'imports feed subscriptions and folders' from a single document, which contrasts implicitly with the one-at-a-time subscribe_feed/create_folder siblings, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance is given. 'Existing subscriptions are preserved' is the only routing-relevant behavior hint, and no prerequisites or error-handling conditions are stated.

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