Check whether the NewsMCP REST API is reachable and healthy.
Does not require an API token. Use when diagnosing connectivity, not for searching news.
For allowances and remaining budget use check_limits instead.
Returns: str: Health status reported by the API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does disclose the key facts: no API token is required, it is a read-only connectivity diagnostic, and it returns the API health status. It does not go deeper into error handling or timeout behavior, but for a trivial health check this is sufficient.
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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and organized into clear usage and return sections. Every sentence contributes either purpose, routing, auth, or return-value information with no repetition or filler.
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 parameterless health check, the description covers purpose, auth, routing, and return type. The only minor gap is not distinguishing check_health from the sibling check_coverage, though the explicit 'API reachable and healthy' wording makes confusion unlikely.
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?
The schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document; the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by noting no API token is required, preventing an agent from inventing an auth parameter.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Check whether the NewsMCP REST API is reachable and healthy') and immediately differentiates itself from sibling tools by saying it is not for searching news and that check_limits covers allowances. The core purpose is unambiguous and distinct from the sibling set.
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 states exactly when to use the tool ('Use when diagnosing connectivity'), gives an explicit exclusion ('not for searching news'), and names the correct alternative for a different need ('For allowances and remaining budget use check_limits instead'). This is near-ideal routing 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.