get_newsroomList current deterministic analyses with citations, correction metadata, publication gates, and explicit evidence limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feeds | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| schema | Yes | ||
| articles | Yes | ||
| generated_at | Yes | ||
| verification | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful contextual detail about what the newsroom contains, such as citations, correction metadata, publication gates, and evidence limits, but it does not explain behaviors like ordering, pagination, or what 'publication gates' mean in practice.
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 front-loads the action and resource, then packs the relevant details into a compact list. There is 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 read-only list operation with one simple optional parameter, an output schema, and readOnly annotations, the description is fairly complete. It names the content domain and the key metadata categories. It could be stronger with sibling guidance, but that is already captured under usage guidelines.
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 0% and the description never mentions the 'limit' parameter. The schema itself provides type, default, min, and max constraints, but the description adds no semantic meaning about how the limit affects the returned list, so it does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 ('List') and a specific resource ('current deterministic analyses'), and enumerates the kinds of metadata returned. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like get_story or get_overview.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor any exclusions or conditions. The word 'current' implies a recency filter, but there is no actionable direction about choosing this over get_overview or get_palimpsest_bridge.
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 distinct, but the three palimpsest endpoints (context, bridge, corridors) all return related official aggregates and demand careful reading to avoid mis-selection. get_newsroom, get_overview, and get_story are more separable, though their retrieval roles still slightly overlap.
Tool names follow a consistent get_<noun> snake_case pattern, and list_capabilities is a standard exception for MCP introspection. The palimpsest_* subnames are terse and somewhat obscure, but they do not break the overall convention.
Seven tools is well-scoped for an evidence explorer: each covers a meaningful retrieval or orientation function without redundancy. The count is neither thin nor bloated for the stated purpose.
The core read-only exploration surface is covered: overview aggregates, newsroom analyses, story dossiers, country-level corridors, and capability discovery. The main gap is the lack of a general search or filter tool for drugs, routes, or time periods, but agents can work around this with the provided curated endpoints.