Search news articles from thousands of sources worldwide.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results, 1-100 (default: 10) | |
| query | Yes | Search keyword (max 500 characters) | |
| source | No | Filter by news source domain, e.g. "bbc.com" | |
| country | No | 2-letter country code (default: "us") | us |
| language | No | 2-letter language code (default: "en") | en |
| time_published | No | Time filter: "anytime", "1h", "1d", "7d", or "1y" | anytime |
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?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states what is searched, but doesn't disclose any behavior beyond that, such as how results are returned, whether filters apply by default, or any limitations like rate limits or source diversity.
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, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no extraneous information. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward search tool.
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 is minimal but sufficient for a simple search tool. It could benefit from mentioning the type of results returned or that filters exist, but the schema compensates by documenting all parameters. Given no output schema or annotations, a bit more context would be ideal, but it remains acceptable.
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% with each parameter having its own description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. It doesn't hinder understanding, but also doesn't provide any extra semantic clarity.
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 purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Search news articles'. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_web or search_reddit, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The addition of 'thousands of sources worldwide' adds 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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description doesn't explain when to choose this tool over other search tools, nor does it offer any alternatives or exclusions. The agent gets no help in deciding between search_news and search_web for a query.
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.
Most tools are clearly scoped by platform and resource (e.g. search_twitter vs twitter_user_tweets vs twitter_tweet_details). A few pairs like twitter_tweet_comments vs twitter_user_replies or facebook_page_posts vs search_facebook_posts could cause minor confusion, but descriptions generally clarify the distinction.
The dominant pattern is snake_case with a platform_prefix_resource suffix, and search_* consistently marks search operations. Minor deviations include noun-style names like amazon_best_sellers and place_photos, and the odd get_ skill/comments tools, but the overall convention is predictable.
74 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped MCP server, even for a multi-platform API aggregator. The breadth is justified by the many platforms covered, but an agent will face a very large action space, and this could reasonably be split into per-platform servers.
The server provides strong lifecycle coverage for its read-only domain: search, profile/details, posts, and engagement data across most platforms. Gaps exist for some platforms (e.g. no LinkedIn person profile, no Facebook event details, no Truth Social profile/search, no Reddit subreddit-specific tools), but the core workflows are well covered.
