FeedKeeper RSS/Atom reader and remote MCP Server

List folders / categories

list_folders

Retrieve a read-only list of all RSS/Atom feed folders for the current user, including feed counts and unread article counts per folder.

Instructions

Lists all feed categories/folders created by the current user, including feed counts and unread article counts per folder. Safe read-only operation.

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": "list_folders"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.36.3Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety profile; it partially does by declaring 'Safe read-only operation' and disclosing that results include feed counts and unread counts. It does not cover ordering, whether empty folders appear, or permission scoping beyond 'current user', so the disclosure is incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences with the content-bearing information first and the safety note second; nothing is wasted or repeated from the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A zero-parameter read tool with no output schema is well served here: the description states what is returned (folders plus feed and unread counts) and the safety profile, which is everything needed to call it correctly.

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 no parameters, so there is no schema detail for the description to add or omit; baseline applies. The description correctly does not invent parameters.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Lists all feed categories/folders') and scopes it to those 'created by the current user', which separates it from list_feeds and get_overview in practice. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction rather than being told.

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 is implied by 'lists all' and the per-folder counts, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_overview or list_feeds, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent can guess the right context but is not guided.

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