News search for AI agents: recent news on any topic from outlets worldwide, by country and language.
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a distinct purpose: search_news discovers articles by query, find_similar expands on a story from a known URL, and get_contents retrieves metadata and excerpts for specific URLs. There is no meaningful overlap between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores: find_similar, get_contents, and search_news. This makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate.
Three tools is a well-scoped size for a read-only news search and retrieval service. Each tool covers a distinct core need: discovery, related-story expansion, and content retrieval.
The set covers the full read-only workflow: search for articles, find related coverage, and fetch excerpts/metadata for selected URLs. There are no obvious dead ends, and the deliberate limitation to excerpts is documented rather than a gap.
Find other news articles about the same story as a given article URL, across the index (the last 7 days by default). Useful to see how other outlets covered a story. US$2.20 per 1,000 calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The article URL whose story to find elsewhere. | |
| days | No | Only the last N days, 1 to 365. Defaults to 7. | |
| max_results | No | How many results, 1 to 25. Defaults to 10. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | |
| cached | No | |
| results | Yes | |
| cost_usd | Yes | |
| warnings | No | |
| reference | No | |
| incomplete | No | The time or token budget ran out: there may be more. |
| request_id | Yes | |
| near_misses | No | Only when nothing matched: the closest articles, which may not be about it. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the default 7-day window and pricing, but does not go beyond that into behavior like result ordering, failure modes, or how 'similar' is determined.
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?
Three short sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded, followed by a use case and pricing. Every sentence 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?
For a simple read-only tool with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it finds, the default window, and cost. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents url, days, and max_results. The description only restates the URL anchor and default time window, adding no meaning beyond the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find other news articles about the same story as a given article URL.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like search_news (query-based) and get_contents (fetching an article's content) by anchoring on a URL and story similarity.
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?
It gives a concrete use case ('Useful to see how other outlets covered a story') and sets the default scope ('last 7 days by default'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the URL-based similarity framing makes the intended context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the title, standfirst, date, source and a short verbatim excerpt (up to 25 words) of up to 10 news article URLs. With a query, the excerpt is the one about it and relevance says how much the article covers it. Never returns the full text. US$0.20 per 1,000 pages read (US$0.40 with a query); pages that fail are free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urls | Yes | Up to 10 article URLs, such as https://example.com/news/article. | |
| query | No | Optional: the excerpt is then the one about this query, with a relevance score. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | |
| cost_usd | Yes | |
| request_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds significant behavioral context: it explicitly says the tool never returns full text, caps excerpts at 25 words, charges per 1,000 pages read, and makes failed pages free. These are non-obvious constraints an agent needs to know.
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?
Three sentences with no redundant wording. The most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded: what is returned, the URL limit, the no-full-text guarantee, and pricing. Every sentence 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?
An output schema exists, so return value details are already covered. The description supplies the remaining operational context: URL count limits, excerpt length, pricing, failure handling, and the effect of the optional query. Nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly is missing.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description largely restates the schema: urls are 'up to 10 news article URLs' and query is 'the excerpt is then the one about it.' It adds a small clarification that relevance measures 'how much the article covers it,' but does not substantially go beyond the 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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Get the title, standfirst, date, source and a short verbatim excerpt...' and enumerates exact output fields. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_news or find_similar, but the URL-list input and 'Never returns the full text' make its scope clear.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as check_coverage, find_similar, or search_news. The 'With a query' clause explains optional behavior but does not state when to prefer this tool or what alternatives exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search recent news on any topic across a curated index of news outlets worldwide, judged by a relevance model. Returns the matching articles: title, link, source, date, country and language, standfirst, and short excerpts in the modes that read. Use it for current events and for what outlets reported about a company, person, place or topic. Defaults: mode "fast" (US$1.40 per 1,000 searches) and the last 7 days; mode "ultra" judges headlines only, for US$1.00.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Only the last N days, 1 to 365. Defaults to 7 unless published_after or published_before are given. | |
| mode | No | fast (default): headlines and standfirsts · ultra (cheapest): headlines only · normal: also reads the best matches · deep: reads more, finds the topic in other words too. | fast |
| query | Yes | What to look for, in any language: a topic, event, person, company or place, such as "inflation in Argentina" or "OpenAI funding". | |
| countries | No | Only sources from these countries: ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes, such as ["AR"] or ["US", "GB"]. | |
| languages | No | Only sources that publish in these languages: ISO 639-1 codes, such as ["es"] or ["en", "pt"]. | |
| max_results | No | How many results, 1 to 25. Defaults to 10. | |
| exclude_domains | No | Never these domains or paths. | |
| include_domains | No | Only these domains or paths, such as example.com or example.com/sports. | |
| published_after | No | Published on or after this date: 2026-09-25, or a date-time with offset. | |
| published_before | No | Published on or before this date; a bare date includes that whole day. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | |
| query | Yes | |
| cached | No | |
| results | Yes | |
| cost_usd | Yes | |
| warnings | No | |
| incomplete | No | The time or token budget ran out: there may be more. |
| request_id | Yes | |
| near_misses | No | Only when nothing matched: the closest articles, which may not be about it. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is based on a curated outlet index, uses a relevance model, returns specific article fields, and discloses mode-dependent behavior and pricing. This is substantial transparency for a read-only search tool.
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 four dense sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then return fields, usage guidance, and defaults/costs in a logical order, and every sentence carries information an agent needs.
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?
For a 10-parameter tool, the rich schema covers parameter mechanics, the output schema covers return shape, and the description supplies the missing context: when to use it, what index it searches, and how modes differ. Nothing essential for selecting and invoking the tool correctly is missing.
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 descriptions already covering defaults, ranges, formats, and examples. The description reinforces the default 7-day window and mode behavior, but it adds little genuinely new parameter-level meaning, so the 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?
The description opens with a specific action and resource: 'Search recent news on any topic across a curated index of news outlets worldwide.' It also lists the returned fields and names concrete use cases, making it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools even without reading their schemas.
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?
It explicitly says 'Use it for current events and for what outlets reported about a company, person, place or topic,' which gives an agent clear context for when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
check_coveragecheck_coveragefind_similarget_contentssearch_newsGoogle web and news search for AI agents.
Search global news in natural language. Filter by language, country, date, sentiment, and domain.
Real-time financial news for AI agents: search by ticker and source, with sentiment and entities.
Free cross-lingual news briefings for AI agents across 89 languages. Read-only, hosted.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
