Access the latest technology news from NewTqnia.com through the Model Context Protocol. Search articles, retrieve structured news content, browse categories, tags, and timelines, and access authoritative technology reporting for AI assistants, research, and automation.
Scored across 6 tools
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: news by ID, recent news list, timeline by ID, explainer search, terminology search, and server status. There is no overlap in purpose, and descriptions clearly differentiate the retrieval patterns.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_*, search_*), which is predictable. The exception is server_status, which uses a noun phrase rather than a verb-led name, but this is a minor deviation and still readable.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a retrieval and search server. Each tool earns its place, and the count is neither too thin nor too heavy for the stated purpose.
The set covers core retrieval for news and timelines, and search for explainers and terminology. However, there is no way to discover timelines without knowing an ID, and no search for news articles beyond the recent list. This creates a notable gap in content discovery.
Returns one published article. Administrators get the complete bilingual record, including bodies, tags, citations, and access to unpublished drafts. Other accounts get a single locale (pass the caller's language in locale) with a title, summary, and canonical URL to read the full article - never the article body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | The calling user's language. Ignored for administrator tokens, which always receive both languages. | en |
| news_id | Yes | The exact NewTqnia article ID. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | |
| url | No | |
| slug | Yes | |
| tags | Yes | |
| title | No | |
| source | No | |
| status | No | |
| url_ar | No | |
| url_en | No | |
| body_ar | No | |
| body_en | No | |
| summary | No | |
| category | Yes | Full taxonomy record for administrator tokens; {slug, name} for other accounts. |
| editable | No | |
| title_ar | No | |
| title_en | No | |
| citations | Yes | |
| read_time | Yes | |
| created_at | Yes | |
| image_path | Yes | |
| summary_ar | No | |
| summary_en | No | |
| updated_at | Yes | |
| view_count | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the read-only annotation by explaining the role-based behavior: administrators get complete bilingual records including bodies, tags, citations, and drafts, while other accounts only get a single locale with title, summary, and canonical URL, never the article body. This is rich behavioral context not captured by 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and every sentence adds necessary detail. No fluff or redundancy.
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 get-by-ID tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the two access scenarios and what each role receives, including the notable exclusion of article body for non-admins. The output schema can handle field-level details, so no further explanation is needed.
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 already fully describes both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by instructing to pass the caller's language in locale and noting that it is ignored for administrator tokens, which is valuable 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 clearly states the tool returns one published article by ID, which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing the admin vs. non-admin behavior and access to unpublished drafts, making it unambiguous which tool to use for fetching a single article.
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 implies usage for retrieving a specific article by ID, and provides guidance on setting the locale parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_recent_news or search_terminology, lacking clear exclusions or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Returns published news from the past X days (90 by default). Administrators get bilingual titles, summaries, and URLs; other accounts get a single locale (pass the caller's language in locale) with a title, summary, and canonical URL to read the full article.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| locale | No | The calling user's language. Ignored for administrator tokens, which always receive both languages. | en |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| days | Yes | |
| news | Yes | |
| count | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the role-based response differences (bilingual vs. single locale) and the default time window.
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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only essential information. There is no redundant repetition of schema fields or annotations.
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 main usage, role-based behavior, and key parameter semantics. It does not mention the limit parameter, but the schema provides that. Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 coverage is only 33% (only locale has a description), but the description compensates by explaining days ('past X days') and locale usage ('pass the caller's language'). It does not explain the limit parameter, which is mentioned in the schema but not described in text, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.
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 the tool returns published news from a specified time window, using a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('published news'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_news_by_id by focusing on recent news lists rather than individual items.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to fetch recent published news) and includes role-based usage details (admins vs. other accounts). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, 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.
Returns one published timeline. Administrators get the complete bilingual record with every event, source, and related link, plus access to draft content. Other accounts get a single locale (pass the caller's language in locale): each event's title, summary, media, sources, and related links, plus a canonical URL to the full timeline - never event bodies or the timeline introduction/conclusion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | The calling user's language. Ignored for administrator tokens, which always receive both languages. | en |
| timeline_id | Yes | The exact NewTqnia timeline ID. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | |
| url | No | |
| slug | Yes | |
| uuid | No | |
| title | No | |
| events | Yes | |
| status | No | |
| url_ar | No | |
| url_en | No | |
| summary | No | |
| end_date | Yes | |
| featured | No | |
| title_ar | No | |
| title_en | No | |
| created_at | Yes | |
| is_ongoing | Yes | |
| start_date | Yes | |
| summary_ar | No | |
| summary_en | No | |
| updated_at | Yes | |
| cover_media | No | |
| event_count | Yes | |
| conclusion_ar | No | |
| conclusion_en | No | |
| timeline_type | Yes | |
| introduction_ar | No | |
| introduction_en | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds significant behavioral detail: administrators receive complete bilingual records including drafts, while other accounts receive a single locale with specific fields and who are explicitly barred from event bodies and the timeline introduction/conclusion. This goes well beyond annotation hints.
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 with a front-loaded action. The second sentence is long and somewhat dense, but each clause carries necessary information about role-based responses. It is efficient enough for its content, though a bit more structured formatting could improve readability.
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?
Given the output schema and annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers what is returned for both admin and non-admin roles, mentions the canonical URL, and states exclusions. It does not cover error cases or pagination, but those are not critical for this read-only, single-resource tool.
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% and already documents both parameters thoroughly, including the locale's enum and note that it is ignored for admins. The description reiterates the locale guidance ('pass the caller's language in locale') without adding new semantic meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 'Returns one published timeline', a specific verb+resource pairing that clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_news_by_id by focusing on timelines and immediately notes role-based response differences, making its scope unambiguous.
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 clear usage context: use this tool to retrieve a timeline by ID, and instructs non-admin callers to pass their language in the locale parameter. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Searches explainers by English/Arabic title, slug, summary, or content. Administrators see draft and published explainers with both languages, and should call this before creating a new explainer to avoid duplicates. Other accounts see published explainers only, in a single locale (pass the caller's language in locale), each with a canonical URL to the full explainer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| locale | No | The calling user's language. Ignored for administrator tokens, which always receive both languages. | en |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | |
| success | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the visibility difference between administrator and non-administrator tokens, the locale parameter's behavior, and that results include a canonical URL. This is useful supplementary detail to the readOnly and idempotent hints provided by 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?
The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds meaningful information. It is tight and free of redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given the output schema exists and annotations are present, the description covers all necessary aspects: search scope, role-based behavior, locale handling, canonical URL, and a usage recommendation for duplicate avoidance. It is fully sufficient for the tool's complexity.
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 description clarifies the 'query' parameter by listing the searchable fields (title, slug, summary, content), which is not in the schema. It also explains the 'locale' parameter's role and administrator override. Only 'limit' lacks description, but its schema constraints and default are sufficient. With schema description coverage at 33%, the description effectively compensates.
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 ('searches') and clearly identifies the resource ('explainers') and the exact searchable fields (English/Arabic title, slug, summary, content). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_terminology and get_news_by_id.
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?
Explicitly states when to use this tool ('should call this before creating a new explainer to avoid duplicates') and explains role-based behavior (administrators vs other accounts) and locale handling. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Searches terminology by English term, Arabic term, abbreviation, or slug using normalized, case-insensitive matching. Administrators see draft and published terms with both languages, and should call this before creating a new term to avoid duplicates. Other accounts see published terms only, in a single locale (pass the caller's language in locale), each with a canonical URL to the full definition.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| locale | No | The calling user's language. Ignored for administrator tokens, which always receive both languages. | en |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | |
| success | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: normalized and case-insensitive matching, role-based visibility (draft vs. published, both languages for admins), locale handling for non-admins, and the inclusion of a canonical URL. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not cover every behavior (e.g., pagination), but with annotations carrying the safety profile, a 4 is justified.
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 remarkably concise—only two sentences—yet packs in the core search behavior, usage guidance, role-based differences, and locale handling. Every sentence earns its place, with the primary purpose front-loaded. No redundancy 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?
The description covers purpose, usage, behavioral nuances, and key parameter semantics. With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It addresses the tool's complexity (role-based results, locale, canonical URL) adequately. Minor missing aspects like limitation/pagination are either obvious from schema or unnecessary. A score of 4 reflects strong completeness without being exhaustive.
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 only 33% (locale), but the description compensates for query by explaining it searches by English term, Arabic term, abbreviation, or slug. It also references locale by saying 'pass the caller's language in locale.' The limit parameter is not explicitly described, but its schema includes defaults and bounds, making its semantics reasonably clear. This is above baseline due to the added query context, though limit remains a minor gap.
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 the tool's function: 'Searches terminology by English term, Arabic term, abbreviation, or slug using normalized, case-insensitive matching.' This specifies the verb, resource, and search fields, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_explainers, which search a different domain. The role-based detail further clarifies scope.
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 provides explicit guidance: 'should call this before creating a new term to avoid duplicates.' It also explains role-based use cases (administrators vs. other accounts). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, though the sibling list implies different domains. This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusions, so a score of 4 is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Returns the current health and timestamp of the NewTqnia server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | |
| timestamp | Yes | |
| application | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations fully declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific return content (health and timestamp) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits or error conditions. With comprehensive annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 a single, clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without any redundant words or filler. It is perfectly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters), a complete output schema, and annotations that cover safety and idempotency, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns. There are no gaps in the context needed for an agent to use 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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema confirms an empty object, so the description does not need to provide parameter details. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no additional parameter semantics are necessary.
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 ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('health and timestamp of the NewTqnia server'), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on news and search. It is immediately clear what the tool does.
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 usage context is clear: this is a server health check, distinct from the content retrieval siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., before other API calls) or mention any exclusions, but the uniqueness of the tool makes the intended usage obvious.
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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
get_news_by_idget_recent_newsget_timeline_by_idsearch_explainerssearch_terminologyserver_statusClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity – fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge – works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge – works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
