Skip to main content
Glama

MCPFax Feed Reader

by com.mcpscores

Read an RSS or Atom feed as structured items

read_feed

Fetch any RSS, RSS/RDF or Atom feed and get back one consistent shape: title, link, ISO-8601 publication date, author, summary and categories per item, plus the feed's own title and last-build time. The three feed dialects disagree about every element name and date format; this normalises them so you never branch on feed type. Pass 'since' to return only items published after a timestamp — the cheap way to poll for what changed. Costs $0.005 USDC per call via x402 on Base.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesAbsolute URL of the feed itself, e.g. 'https://hnrss.org/frontpage'.
limitNoMaximum items to return. Default 20, maximum 100.
sinceNoISO-8601 timestamp; return only items published at or after it. Use your last poll time.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "20"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / since / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "2026-08-23T00:00:00Z"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / url / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "https://hnrss.org/frontpage"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.005 USDC per call via x402 on Base) and normalization behavior, which is useful. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or what happens on invalid URLs. For a read tool with no annotations, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is compact—three sentences covering the main function, normalization, polling hint, and cost. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids fluff. Slightly long due to the cost mention, but that information is valuable and earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explicitly lists the returned fields (title, link, ISO-8601 date, author, summary, categories, feed title, last-build time), which is critical for an agent to know what to expect. It also explains normalization and cost. It doesn't cover errors or edge cases, but for a simple fetch tool this is fairly complete.

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 coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal new information about parameters—it repeats the 'since' usage but doesn't clarify syntax or edge cases beyond what the schema already provides. It does not compensate for any gaps because there are none.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('any RSS, RSS/RDF or Atom feed') and clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose: returning a normalized, consistent shape across feed dialects. This is unambiguous and immediately tells an agent what the tool does.

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?

The description implies usage for polling via the 'since' parameter ('the cheap way to poll for what changed'), giving contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like discover_feeds or demand_report, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

All MCPFax Feed Reader toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources