Newest items, optionally narrowed to a collection, source or kind.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Item kind | |
| limit | No | Default 30, max 200 | |
| source | No | Source slug | |
| before_id | No | Keyset cursor | |
| collection | No | Collection slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It says the result is 'newest items' and that filtering is optional, but it does not explain how multiple filters interact, how pagination via before_id works, whether this is read-only, or what the response looks like. These are meaningful gaps for a tool with no annotation safety signals.
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 one short, front-loaded phrase: 'Newest items' comes first and immediately communicates the core behavior. The optional narrowing detail is compact and every word earns its place.
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?
Given the rich schema and the straightforward list behavior, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps. It does not explain filter combination, pagination semantics around before_id, or the item return shape, and with no output schema or annotations an agent has limited additional context to infer these behaviors.
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 all parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. It does add the insight that collection, source, and kind act as narrowing filters, though the word 'or' leaves ambiguity about whether filters combine. This matches the baseline for a well-covered 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 clearly states that the tool returns the newest items and can be narrowed by collection, source, or kind. It provides a specific resource and intent, making its purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like feed_items or search_items, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 phrase 'optionally narrowed' implies this tool is for retrieving recent items and that filters are optional, which gives some usage guidance. It does not state when to prefer this over alternatives such as feed_items, search_items, or upcoming, nor does it give any when-not-to-use guidance.
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 tools are mostly distinct: list_* tools cover different metadata resources, and item queries are separated into recent_items, search_items, upcoming, and feed_items. Some overlap exists among the item-retrieval tools, but descriptions clarify their different filters and use cases.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern such as add_source, create_feed, list_* and search_items. A few exceptions like feed_items, stats, and upcoming break the pattern, but the overall naming is still predictable and readable.
Fifteen tools is well within the expected range and each tool maps to a distinct part of the domain: adapters, sources, collections, enrichers, feeds, items, and stats. The count feels appropriate for the breadth of NicheDB without obvious bloat.
The read and query surface is strong, covering items, feeds, sources, collections, and enrichers. However, lifecycle management is incomplete: sources and feeds can be created but not updated or deleted, and feeds can be followed but not unfollowed, which leaves notable admin workflow gaps.