discover_feedsGiven a site's normal URL, return the feeds it declares in its HTML head, each with title and type. Use when you know a site publishes updates but not where its feed lives. If the page declares none, conventional locations are suggested and clearly marked as guesses that may 404. Costs $0.005 USDC per call via x402 on Base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The site's page URL, e.g. 'https://blog.rust-lang.org'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / url / examplesAdded value: +[
+ "https://blog.rust-lang.org"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return shape, the fallback behavior of suggesting conventional locations marked as guesses that may 404, and discloses the cost of $0.005 USDC per call via x402 on Base. This is unusually transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded, leading with the core behavior, then the use case, fallback behavior, and cost. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or filler wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, and the description covers the return value, the use case, the failure/fallback case, and cost. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes the single url parameter fully with an example and explanation, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds only the phrase 'normal URL,' which is mildly clarifying but does not substantially go beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: given a site's normal URL, return the feeds it declares in its HTML head, each with title and type. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like read_feed, which likely fetch and parse feed content rather than discovering feed locations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool: when you know a site publishes updates but not where its feed lives. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The feed tools are clearly separated: discover_feeds locates feed URLs while read_feed consumes them. demand_report and request_data both involve data needs, but one is aggregate market demand while the other is an individual availability query, so the descriptions prevent serious confusion.
Three tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern: discover_feeds, read_feed, request_data. demand_report reads more like a noun compound than a verb_noun action, which is a minor deviation rather than a systemic inconsistency.
Four tools is a well-scoped set for a feed reader and data-request utility. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without redundancy, and the count feels appropriate for the server's apparent focus.
The core workflow of discovering feeds, reading them, and querying data availability is covered. Polling is supported via the 'since' parameter, but there is no subscription-management or explicit feed-validation tool, which are minor gaps rather than blockers.