FeedKeeper RSS/Atom reader and remote MCP Server

List muted keywords

list_muted_keywords

Lists active muted keyword filters for the current user so you can review which terms are excluded from new item views and newspaper editions.

Instructions

Lists all keyword filters configured for the current user. Articles matching any active muted keyword are automatically filtered out from new item views and newspaper editions. Safe read-only.

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_muted_keywords"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.36.3Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the safety profile ("Safe read-only") and the downstream effect that matching articles are filtered from new item views and newspaper editions, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It stops short of describing what the response contains, whether inactive keywords are included, or any ordering/limit behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then consequences, then safety. No filler or repetition of the title beyond the necessary verb-resource statement.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a zero-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, and the filtering semantics are explained. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of truth about the return value (e.g., keyword strings plus activation state), and it does not cover that.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not introduce any confusing parameter-like language.

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?

"Lists all keyword filters configured for the current user" gives a specific verb (lists) and a specific resource (keyword filters/muted keywords), and the second sentence clarifies what a muted keyword actually does. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling unmute_keyword or add_muted_keyword, but the read semantics are unambiguous from the name and verb.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the inspection counterpart to add_muted_keyword/unmute_keyword, but the description never names those alternatives or says when to call this versus managing keywords elsewhere. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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