Skip to main content
Glama

Helium MCP Server - News, Markets & AI

get_all_source_biases

Read-only

Get a page of news-source bias scores.

Returns sources active within the last 36 days with >100 articles analyzed, sorted by
avg_social_shares descending. The response also includes total, offset, limit, has_more,
and one shared bias_score_methodology block.

Each entry contains:
- source_name, slug_name, page_url
- articles_analyzed: total articles analyzed for this source
- avg_social_shares: average social shares per article (proxy for reach/influence)
- emotionality_score (0-10): average emotional intensity of the writing
- prescriptiveness_score (0-10): how much the source tells readers what to think/do
- bias_values: dict mapping classifier key → integer source weighted display score
  (-50 to +50 for bipolar, 0 to +50 for unipolar). Keys use the same canonical
  names as get_bias_from_url where a source aggregate is available, but article scores use
  -10 to +10 or 0 to 10. Compare direction directly; normalize before comparing magnitude.

  Political / ideological (bipolar: neg=left pole, pos=right pole):
    'liberal conservative bias'      neg=liberal, pos=conservative
    'populist elitist bias'           neg=populist, pos=elitist
    'libertarian authoritarian bias' neg=libertarian, pos=authoritarian
    'dovish hawkish bias'            neg=dovish, pos=hawkish
    'establishment bias'             neg=anti-establishment, pos=pro-establishment

  Credibility / quality (bipolar):
    'overall credibility'            neg=low credibility, pos=high credibility
    'integrity bias'                 neg=low integrity, pos=high integrity
    'article intelligence'           neg=low intelligence, pos=high intelligence
    'delusion bias'                  neg=truth-seeking, pos=delusional
    'objective subjective bias'      neg=objective, pos=subjective
    'objective sensational bias'     neg=objective, pos=sensational
    'descriptive prescriptive bias'  neg=descriptive, pos=prescriptive
    'bearish bullish bias'           neg=bearish, pos=bullish
    'optimistic pessimistic bias'    neg=pessimistic, pos=optimistic
    'interesting'                    neg=boring, pos=interesting
    'emotional bias'                 neg=negative tone, pos=positive tone
    'rational irrational bias'       neg=rational, pos=irrational
    'corporate bias'                 neg=anti-corporate, pos=pro-corporate
    'science superstition bias'      neg=scientific, pos=superstitious
    'individualist collectivist bias' neg=individualist, pos=collectivist

  Unipolar bias dimensions (higher = more of that trait):
    'opinion bias'                   opinion vs informative
    'political bias'                 political content
    'fearful bias'                   fear-based framing
    'overconfidence bias'            overconfidence
    'gossip bias'                    gossip
    'manipulation bias'              manipulative framing
    'ideological bias'               ideological rigidity
    'conspiracy bias'                conspiracy content
    'double standard bias'           double standards
    'virtue signal bias'             virtue signaling
    'oversimplification bias'        oversimplification
    'appeal to authority bias'       appeal to authority
    'begging the question bias'      question-begging
    'victimization bias'             victimization framing
    'terrorism bias'                 terrorism content
    'fraud bias'                     fraud-promoting framing
    'marxism bias'                   Marxist framing
    'islamist bias'                  Islamist framing
    'anti-semitism bias'             anti-Jewish framing
    'anti-lgbt bias'                 anti-LGBT framing
    'racism bias'                    racist framing
    'anti-enlightenment bias'        regressive, anti-liberal content
    'scapegoat bias'                 scapegoating
    'hypocrisy bias'                 hypocrisy
    'suicidal empathy bias'          suicidal-empathy framing
    'cruelty bias'                   cruelty
    'woke bias'                      woke framing
    'written by AI'                  AI-written likelihood
    'immature bias'                  immaturity
    'circular reasoning bias'        circular reasoning
    'covering the response bias'     covering-the-response tactic
    'spam bias'                      spam-like content
    'advertising bias'               advertorial or promotional content
    'speculation bias'               speculation or forecasting
    'big pharma bias'                reflexive trust in medical/pharma authority

Tip: use get_source_bias for full narrative descriptions and recent articles on a specific source.
Tip: bias_values use shared canonical names where available. Source and article score scales
differ, so normalize magnitudes.
get_source_bias exposes the same canonical keys in bias_values and retains emoji-prefixed
bias_scores only for backward compatibility.

Args:
    limit: Sources to return (1-1000, default 200).
    offset: Number of sources to skip for pagination (default 0).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
offsetNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
      +  "default": 200,
      +  "title": "Limit",
      +  "type": "integer"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset
      Added value: +{
      +  "default": 0,
      +  "title": "Offset",
      +  "type": "integer"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description richly discloses behavior: it filters sources by activity and article count, sorts by avg_social_shares descending, returns pagination metadata (total, offset, limit, has_more), includes a shared bias_score_methodology block, and explains score scale differences requiring normalization. It also details bias key polarity semantics and backward compatibility. No contradictions with the annotations.

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?

The description is long, but most content is justified because the bias key taxonomy and score scales are essential for correct interpretation. It is front-loaded with the core behavior, followed by structured lists. There is minor redundancy—the advice to normalize magnitudes and use canonical names appears more than once—so a point is lost, but overall it earns its length.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only paginated list tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it covers filtering, sorting, pagination, entry fields, score ranges, polarity mappings, and cross-tool key compatibility. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call or correctly parse the response is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains limit as 'Sources to return (1-1000, default 200)' and offset as 'Number of sources to skip for pagination (default 0)', adding range, purpose, and behavioral meaning not present in the input schema. Both parameters are fully clarified.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The opening line states a specific action and resource: 'Get a page of news-source bias scores.' It further differentiates itself by listing the inclusion criteria (active within 36 days, >100 articles) and sort order, and later explicitly contrasts with get_source_bias for source-specific narratives. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_source_bias and get_bias_from_url.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives concrete guidance: use get_source_bias when full narrative descriptions or recent articles on a specific source are needed, and references get_bias_from_url for canonical key names. It stops short of explicitly saying 'use this tool only when you need many sources' or providing a when-not-to-use rule for all siblings, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources