Chinng AI-Agent Portal

portal_list

List item metadata (no body, token-light).

Two content families are distinguished by category prefix:

news articles: category="news" (or narrower, e.g. "news/world")
CVE/vulnerability advisories: category="security" (or "security/library" / "security/os" / "security/app") Omit category to list both together.

Args: category: category prefix match. e.g. "news" matches all news/*, "security" matches all CVE, "news/world" narrows it status: filter by ingested/processed/enriched/published (all if omitted) source: feed identifier. e.g. "ghost-chinng-lab" lang: original language. e.g. "ja" since: lower bound on published_at (ISO 8601. e.g. "2026-07-01") until: upper bound on published_at (ISO 8601) q: title substring search limit: number of results (default 20, max 100) offset: paging start position

Returns: {total, count, limit, offset, items[]} — each item includes summary/summary_en/tags/ entities/related_auto/license_note plus summary_omitted_reason, redistribution, keywords_en, entities_en, topics_en and numeric_facts, but never the body.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "portal_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	No
`lang`	No
`limit`	No
`since`	No
`until`	No
`offset`	No
`source`	No
`status`	No
`category`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the read-only listing nature, the token-light/no-body guarantee, default and maximum limits, and the exact return envelope. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements, rate limits, or ordering of results.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then organized under 'Args:' and 'Returns:' with per-parameter lines. It reads as a pasted Python docstring with stray indentation and a bolded '**never the body**', but there is little wasted prose and the scoping rule appears first.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 9-parameter, zero-annotation listing tool this covers the essentials: what is listed, how families are selected, every argument's meaning, and the shape of the response including the fields present and the absence of body text. Only cross-tool routing and result ordering remain unaddressed, and an output schema already exists to carry return details.

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 0%, but the description compensates well by giving an example or accepted value set for nearly every one of the 9 parameters (prefix matching for category, the four status values, ISO 8601 for since/until, default 20 / max 100 for limit). The one wrinkle is that 'limit default 20' is stated while the schema declares default null, which can confuse an agent about whether the default is applied server-side.

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

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List item metadata (no body, token-light)', and then splits the corpus into two named content families (news vs security) selected by category prefix. An agent can immediately tell what comes back. It does not, however, contrast itself against siblings like portal_search or portal_get, so the boundary with those tools is left implicit.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Omit category to list both together' and 'q: title substring search' hint at browsing/filtering without declaring when to pick this over portal_search or portal_get. There are no explicit when-not-to-use conditions or named alternatives, so the agent must infer routing.

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

All Chinng AI-Agent Portal tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?