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.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.4/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
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.
get_news_by_idGet a news article by IDAReturns 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 Administrators get the complete bilingual record, including bodies, tags, citations, and access to unpublished drafts.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.
get_recent_newsGet recent published newsAReturns 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=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.
get_timeline_by_idGet a timeline by IDAReturns 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.
search_explainersSearch existing explainersASearches 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 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.
search_terminologySearch existing terminologyASearches 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 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.
server_statusServer statusAReturns 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 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.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
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
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!
