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://feeds.bloomberg.com/markets/crypto.rss"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 15,
+ "query": "security",
+ "url": "https://blog.kraken.com/feed/"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description adds valuable context: 'CF-robust: fetches directly and falls back to a proxy if the source blocks the gateway.' This explains network behavior and resilience, which annotations do not cover.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence earns its place: the first defines the function, the second provides usage guidance and a behavioral feature. No fluff or repetition.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior: what it does (fetch and normalize), its input scope (any feed by URL), its resilience (proxy fallback), and its positioning relative to curated sources. For a read-only fetch tool, this is complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already described. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it mainly reinforces the 'url' scope with 'any RSS / Atom / RDF feed,' which is already implied by the schema's example.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch and normalize any RSS / Atom / RDF feed by URL.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_feed and list_feeds by emphasizing arbitrary URL fetching and normalization, plus the CF-robust fallback behavior.
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 instructs to 'Use list_feeds first for curated sources,' providing a clear alternative and when to use it. This gives the agent actionable guidance on tool selection.
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.
Several tools are nearly indistinguishable in role: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are all variants of the same router, with the beta version explicitly noted as currently identical to the stable one. The six Polymarket tools also overlap heavily around edge-finding, arbitrage, and fill-risk analysis, making misselection likely.
Names are uniformly snake_case and groupable into prefixes like polymarket_* and pipeworx_*, but the set does not follow a consistent verb_noun convention. Noun-first names like entity_profile and recent_alerts sit alongside verb-first names like read_feed and validate_claim, and product-name suffixes such as ask_pipeworx_beta/grounded add further inconsistency.
At 34 tools, the surface is well past the 25+ threshold and far broader than the 'Crypto Feeds' name suggests. The set spans feed reading, general data research, prediction markets, AI-brand visibility audits, npm dependency scanning, memory, and subscriptions, making it feel like a platform-wide dump rather than a focused MCP server.
The broad research workflow is well covered with query, grounded answer, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, fact-checking, and entity resolution. However, feed functionality is read-only with no feed management, subscription types do not include crypto feeds despite the server name, and there is no dedicated tool for resolving the advertised pipeworx:// citation URIs.