fetch_feedFetch and normalize any RSS / Atom / RDF feed by URL. CF-robust: fetches directly and falls back to a proxy if the source blocks the gateway. Use list_feeds first for curated sources.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Feed URL, e.g. "https://news.ycombinator.com/rss". | |
| limit | No | Max items (1-50, default 20). | |
| query | No | Keyword filter over item title/summary. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "url": "https://example.com/feed.xml"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 25,
+ "query": "wind turbines",
+ "url": "https://example.com/energy-feed.rss"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes fallback proxy behavior ('CF-robust'), adding value beyond annotations which already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature. Additional details about normalization would further improve transparency.
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?
Extremely concise: three short sentences covering purpose, behavior, and usage guidance. No wasted words.
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?
Provides key context (normalization, fallback, recommended prior tool) despite no output schema. Could be improved by describing the normalized output format, but sufficient for a simple fetch tool.
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?
Schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description does not add extra meaning to parameters, but the schema descriptions are sufficient. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly states the tool fetches and normalizes RSS/Atom/RDF feeds by URL. Differentiates from siblings like 'list_feeds' (curated sources) and 'read_feed' (likely simpler fetch).
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?
Explicitly suggests using 'list_feeds first for curated sources', guiding agents on when to prefer this tool. Could be stronger by explicitly stating when not to use it, but the guidance is clear.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with thorough descriptions, but ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and the five polymarket_* tools plus three ask_pipeworx variants form overlapping clusters that could cause misselection without careful reading.
Names fall into recognizable families (list_*, read_*, fetch_*, polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*), but conventions are mixed: bare verbs like remember/forget, noun phrases like entity_profile/recent_alerts, and product-prefixed names. Predictable within families but inconsistent across the full set.
34 tools far exceeds the 25+ threshold and the typical well-scoped server. The bulk of tools—Pipeworx data access, Polymarket analysis, memory, subscriptions—go far beyond what a 'Climate Feeds' server name implies, making the set feel bloated and unfocused.
For its actual (much broader-than-named) scope, the surface is remarkably complete: query, grounded verification, research, comparison, entity resolution, memory, subscriptions, feedback, and discovery all exist. Minor gaps remain—subscriptions cannot monitor arbitrary RSS feeds, and there is no update operation for subscriptions.