Skip to main content
Glama

Helium MCP Server - News, Markets & AI

search_news

Read-only

Search news articles.

Returns a list of matching articles. Each article includes:
- article_id, classification_id, title, source, date, link, category, rank, total_shares, summary
- bias_values: dict of per-dimension bias scores using plain-text keys (e.g. 'liberal conservative bias'),
  same schema as get_bias_from_url and get_all_source_biases (when available)
- bias_analysis_status: 'evidence_ready', 'evidence_unverified', 'evidence_partial',
  'evidence_failed' (all scored dimensions' quotes failed verification, so the scores do
  not match the article text), 'scored_legacy', or 'pending'
- evidence_ratio: fraction of scored bias dimensions whose supporting quote is verified
  (0.0-1.0). Raise min_evidence to demand only articles with verified quotes.
- bias_dimensions when include_evidence=true: a self-contained object joining each score,
  scale, evidence status, claim, evidence, counterevidence, confidence, and rationale.
  Quotes include verification method and exact character offsets when raw-text matching succeeds.
  Dimension evidence_status is one of: verified, provided_unchecked, quote_mismatch,
  metadata_incomplete, metadata_only, or missing.
- bias_analysis: contract/schema/model/prompt provenance, generation and review status,
  input scope/hash/size, limitations, quote-verification method, and explicit evidence coverage
- context: AI-generated contextual background for the article (when available)
- implicit_assumptions: tacit or unstated premises the article's claims or framing rely on
  (list of concise strings, when available)
- extracted_data: structured quantitative/qualitative facts extracted from the article
- raw_data: legacy serialized form of extracted_data

Args:
    query: Optional search keywords. Leave empty to return the most recent articles in
           scope (use with bias to rank them). e.g. 'NVDA earnings'.
    limit: Max results (1-100, default 20).
    source: Filter by source name, e.g. 'CNN', 'Reuters'.
    category: Filter by category. One of: 'trending', 'tech', 'markets', 'politics',
              'business', 'science', 'memes'.
    days_back: Only include articles from the last N days. 0 means no date filter.
               Default: 90. Widen this (e.g. 720) for older coverage.
    min_shares: Minimum total social shares.
    sort: Sort order. One of: 'rank' (relevance, default), 'date' (newest), 'shares' (most shared).
    bias: Bias dimension to rank by, highest score first. This is a ranking, not a
          standalone filter: an empty query still returns other recent articles, ranked
          with the bias dimension on top. Any canonical bias key, e.g.
          'liberal conservative bias', 'overall credibility', 'conspiracy bias'.
          Ranking is scoped to recent articles (the days_back window, or 365 days when
          days_back is 0) so one old high-scoring outlier cannot dominate.
    include_evidence: Include claim-level evidence, counterevidence, confidence, rationale, and limitations.
                      Defaults to false to keep search payloads compact.
    only_analyzed: Return only articles with valid canonical bias scores.
    min_evidence: Minimum fraction of scored dimensions with verified quotes (0.0-1.0, default 0).
                  Raise this to request only articles whose scores are backed by verified evidence,
                  e.g. 0.5. Pair it with only_analyzed to get quotable results instead of
                  pending records with empty bias_values. Returns a 400 if sort or bias is not a valid option.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
biasNo
sortNorank
limitNo
queryNo
sourceNo
categoryNo
days_backNo
min_sharesNo
min_evidenceNo
only_analyzedNo
include_evidenceNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / days_back / default
      Previous value: -720New value: +90
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / min_evidence
      Added value: +{
      +  "default": 0,
      +  "title": "Min Evidence",
      +  "type": "number"
      +}
  3. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / bias
      Added value: +{
      +  "default": "",
      +  "title": "Bias",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / query / default
      Added value: +""
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
      -  "query"
      -]
  4. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / include_evidence
      Added value: +{
      +  "default": false,
      +  "title": "Include Evidence",
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / only_analyzed
      Added value: +{
      +  "default": false,
      +  "title": "Only Analyzed",
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description goes well beyond this by enumerating bias analysis statuses, evidence_ratio semantics, quote verification behavior, ranking scope, and the explicit 'Returns a 400 if sort or bias is not a valid option.' No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, a scannable response-field list, and a per-argument section. Some output-field prose may overlap with the existing output schema, but the structure is clear and front-loaded enough to remain usable.

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 complex 11-parameter, read-only search tool with rich provenance/evidence output, the description is complete: every parameter is explained, defaults are given, edge cases and ranking behavior are clarified, and error behavior is disclosed. An agent has enough to select and call it correctly without external context.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by documenting all 11 parameters with defaults, allowed values, examples, and non-obvious behavior (e.g., min_evidence, bias as ranking, days_back=0 semantics). This is significantly more useful than the bare input schema.

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?

The description opens with 'Search news articles' – a specific verb and resource – and the detailed response/args breakdown makes the tool's purpose unmistakable. However, it never directly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_balanced_news or related bias-lookup tools, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 Args section provides strong invocation guidance: empty query returns recent articles, bias is a ranking rather than a filter, min_evidence should be paired with only_analyzed, and days_back can be widened for older coverage. It lacks explicit 'when not to use this tool' or 'use sibling X instead' guidance, so it does not reach a 5.

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