NewTqnia MCP – Technology News & Research

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

Annotations confirm read-only, idempotent. Description adds critical behavioral context: administrators get full bilingual record including bodies and unpublished drafts; others get a single locale with no body. No contradiction with 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 sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value.

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?

With an output schema present, the description sufficiently explains the return differences (admin vs non-admin). Complete for a fetch-by-ID 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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds that locale is ignored for administrators and they always receive both languages, adding 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?

Clearly states the tool returns one published article and distinguishes behavior for administrators vs other accounts. Differentiates from siblings like get_recent_news (list) and get_timeline_by_id (different resource).

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?

Implied usage for fetching a specific article by ID, but no explicit guidance on when not to use or direct comparison to sibling tools. Lacks explicit context selection criteria.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds valuable context: it discloses the time window, role-based output, and the locale parameter's effect. It does not contradict annotations. Minor gap: it doesn't mention ordering or pagination, but the output schema covers the return value.

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: the first states the core functionality, and the second adds critical role-based details. Every sentence is necessary and informative, with no redundant or filler content.

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 existence of an output schema, the description focuses on behavior rather than return values. It covers the time window, role-based differences, and locale usage. It is fairly complete for this simple tool, though it could mention that results are sorted by publish date.

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 33% (only locale has a description). The description explains that days refers to 'past X days' and locale should be the caller's language (ignored for admins). However, it does not add meaning to the limit parameter beyond what the schema provides, and the days parameter's description is minimal.

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 returns published news from the past X days, with a default of 90. It specifies the distinction between administrator and non-administrator outputs (bilingual vs. single locale), making the purpose specific and differentiating it from sibling tools like 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?

The description indicates the tool is for retrieving recent news and explains the different behavior for admins versus other accounts. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_news_by_id or search_explainers, though the context implies listing instead of searching or getting by ID.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral detail: administrators get complete bilingual record with draft content; others get a single locale with specified fields but not bodies or intro/conclusion. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with the key verb. It is a single coherent paragraph, but slightly dense. Every sentence provides value, though it could be more streamlined.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers role-based behavior, locale handling, and what is included/excluded. No gaps for a read 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% for both parameters. The description adds meaning beyond schema for 'locale' (explains it's the caller's language and ignored for admin) and reaffirms the purpose of 'timeline_id'. Value added is moderate.

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 'Returns one published timeline' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes between administrator and non-administrator responses, and the resource 'timeline by ID' is unique among siblings like '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?

The description explains who gets what (admin vs non-admin) and locale handling, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_news_by_id' or 'search_explainers'. Usage guidance is implied but not made explicit.

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

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

The description adds significant behavioral details beyond annotations: admins see draft/published with both languages; others see published in a single locale; results include canonical URL. Annotations already indicate safe, idempotent read, and description enriches that without contradiction.

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 with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second adds admin usage and dedup advice, third explains other accounts and locale. Information is front-loaded and each 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?

Given the tool's complexity (search with role-based filtering, locale), the description covers major aspects. It references canonical URL hinting at output structure, and output schema likely details results. Could mention pagination or result count, but is sufficient for a search 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?

The description explains that query searches by title, slug, summary, or content, and explains locale behavior (caller's language, ignored for admins). This adds value beyond the schema, which only describes locale. The limit parameter is not explained but has clear schema defaults/constraints.

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 searches explainers by specific fields (title, slug, summary, content) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_terminology by specifying the resource and searchable content.

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 explicitly instructs administrators to call this before creating a new explainer to avoid duplicates, and explains different behavior for other accounts. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which is consistent. The description adds valuable behavioral details: admin vs. normal user visibility (draft/published vs. published only), case-insensitive matching, and a canonical URL in results. No contradictions with 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 sentences, one focused on function and the other on role-based behavior and usage hint. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action.

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 presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, role-based behavior, and duplicate avoidance. For a search tool with a few parameters, this is complete and actionable.

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% (locale has description). The description compensates by explaining that query accepts multiple term types (English, Arabic, abbreviation, slug) and that locale is the caller's language, ignored for admins. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema for two of three parameters.

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 searches terminology by English term, Arabic term, abbreviation, or slug using normalized case-insensitive matching. It distinguishes this tool from siblings (news, explainers, server status) by specifying the exact resource and search fields.

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 administrators to call before creating a new term to avoid duplicates, and notes that other accounts see only published terms and must pass the caller's locale. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but provides clear context for different user roles.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, providing a strong safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the exact returned data ('health and timestamp'), which is not in the annotations. No contradictions exist, and the description complements the annotations well.

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 sentence that conveys exactly what the tool does without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan. Every element is essential.

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 has no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations are comprehensive, the description is fully adequate. It tells the agent what the tool returns (health and timestamp) and implies no side effects. No gaps remain for effective use.

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, so the description need not explain any. Schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), and the description does not repeat schema information. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description adds no extra meaning but also does not need to.

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 the current health and timestamp of the NewTqnia server. The verb 'Returns' and specific resource ('health and timestamp of the NewTqnia server') make the purpose unambiguous. Sibling tools are all content-fetching endpoints (news, timeline, explainers, terminology), so this tool is clearly distinguished as a server health check.

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 this tool is used to check server health, with no parameters needed. There is no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, but the sibling tools are for different data retrieval, making the context clear. The simplicity of the tool (no params, no side effects) reduces the need for extensive guidelines, earning a 4.

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