NewsMCP

check_coverage

Judge how widely and how independently a claim has been reported.

Answers "is this real?" rather than returning a list. Reports the number of INDEPENDENT newsrooms — outlets that reported it themselves — separately from the number of domains that carried it, which includes syndication. A story on 200 domains from 3 newsrooms is one story reprinted, not 200 confirmations.

Because upstream clustering splits a story across languages, this totals the likely variants of the same story and presents that total as an upper bound, listing what was combined so the caller can check it is really one story.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`claim`	Yes	The claim or headline to check, phrased in the words a headline would use. Matched literally against headlines and summaries, not by meaning, so "atomic arsenal" will not find stories about nuclear weapons.
`api_key`	No	Optional NewsMCP API key for this call; forwarded upstream as x-api-key. Only one request may be in flight at a time, so never call in parallel.
`days_back`	No	How far back to look, in days. Defaults to 14. Clamped down to whatever the caller's plan allows, with a note saying so.
`response_format`	No	markdown (default), text, or json. Pass the format the user asked for rather than reformatting afterwards.	markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so well. It reveals the critical nuance that independent newsrooms are counted separately from syndicated domains, and it explains the language-clustering behavior that causes the total to be presented as an upper bound with combined variants listed for caller inspection. This goes far beyond a generic 'check coverage' statement.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficiently structured with three purposeful paragraphs: what the tool does, how it distinguishes independent reporting from syndication, and how it handles cross-language clustering. Every sentence adds non-obvious information, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return semantics: independent newsroom count, domain count, and the upper-bound total with a list of combined variants. The parameter schema covers all inputs, and the described behavior is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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 does not add substantial parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; the schema already explains literal matching, days_back clamping, and response_format choices. The description's focus is on output semantics rather than parameter details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

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: 'Judge how widely and how independently a claim has been reported.' It then distinguishes the tool's purpose by saying it 'Answers "is this real?" rather than returning a list,' which clearly separates it from retrieval-style sibling tools like get_story or news.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when to use this tool: when the agent needs to assess whether a claim is credible based on independent reporting, not when it wants a list of articles. It implies the distinction from list-returning siblings but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All NewsMCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a clear primary role: news searches digests, get_story expands one story, check_coverage verifies claim independence, check_limits reports quotas, and check_health tests API connectivity. The only mild overlap is that news can fetch by id while get_story also expands a story, but their descriptions make the distinction clear.

Naming Consistency3/5

Three tools use a consistent check_ prefix, and get_story follows a verb_noun pattern, but the primary search tool is simply named news, which breaks the convention. The naming is readable and all lowercase snake_case, but the mix of check_, get_, and a bare noun is not fully consistent.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for a news-focused MCP server: search, detail expansion, coverage verification, usage limits, and health checking each earn their place. There is no bloat or obvious redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full intended workflow: search synthesized news, expand a story to full details, verify claim coverage, check live plan limits, and diagnose connectivity. Users can discover stories, dive deeper, and understand constraints without hitting dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?