read_feedRead a curated software-development feed by its id (from list_feeds). Returns normalized items (title, link, published, summary). Optionally filter items by keyword.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feed | Yes | Curated feed id (from list_feeds). | |
| 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: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "hacker-news"
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "rust-blog",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "async"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns normalized items with specific fields, which is consistent and provides useful output context without contradicting annotations.
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?
Two efficient sentences: first states purpose and source, second describes return format and optional filter. No redundancy, front-loaded with key information.
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 description covers the core functionality, input prerequisites, output format, and optional filtering. It lacks error handling or return value details but is adequate for a simple read tool given rich annotations.
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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description echoes the parameter purpose but does not add new constraints or formatting details, meeting the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 it reads a curated software-development feed by its ID, distinguishing it from siblings like list_feeds (which provides the IDs) and fetch_feed (if present). It specifies the resource and action.
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 advises obtaining the feed ID from list_feeds, establishing a clear prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like fetch_feed or state when not to use, missing some exclusion 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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and similar data query tools. However, detailed descriptions help agents differentiate.
Names consistently use snake_case and a mix of verb_noun and noun_verb patterns. No camelCase is present, but some tools like 'generate_llms_txt' have embedded acronyms, which slightly reduces consistency.
33 tools is high, but the server covers a wide range of functionalities (data lookups, prediction markets, RSS feeds, memory). Some tools could be combined, but the count is within reasonable limits for a comprehensive tool server.
The tool set covers major areas like entity lookups, prediction market analysis, data retrieval, and memory management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no RSS feed deletion tool), but overall it is quite comprehensive.