get_newestGet latest stories posted to Lobsters. Returns title, URL, publication time, score, and tags for each story.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of stories returned | |
| stories | No | List of newest stories |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / stories / items / properties / description / typePrevious value: -[
- "string",
- "null"
-]New value: +"string"Output schema / properties / stories / items / properties / downvotesRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Number of downvotes",
- "type": "number"
-}Output schema / properties / stories / items / properties / submitterRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Username of story submitter",
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / properties / stories / items / properties / upvotesRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Number of upvotes",
- "type": "number"
-}Output schema / properties / stories / items / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "short_id",
- "url",
- "comments_url",
- "title",
- "score",
- "upvotes",
- "downvotes",
- "comment_count",
- "created_at",
- "submitter",
- "tags",
- "description"
-]Output schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "count",
- "stories"
-]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Number of stories returned",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "stories": {
+ "description": "List of newest stories",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "comment_count": {
+ "description": "Number of comments",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "comments_url": {
+ "description": "URL to view comments on Lobsters",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "created_at": {
+ "description": "ISO timestamp of story creation",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "description": {
+ "description": "Plain text description or null",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "downvotes": {
+ "description": "Number of downvotes",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "score": {
+ "description": "Total score (upvotes - downvotes)",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "short_id": {
+ "description": "Unique short ID for the story",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "submitter": {
+ "description": "Username of story submitter",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "tags": {
+ "description": "Tags associated with the story",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "description": "Story title",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "upvotes": {
+ "description": "Number of upvotes",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "description": "Story URL",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "short_id",
+ "url",
+ "comments_url",
+ "title",
+ "score",
+ "upvotes",
+ "downvotes",
+ "comment_count",
+ "created_at",
+ "submitter",
+ "tags",
+ "description"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "count",
+ "stories"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds minimal behavioral context. It confirms the tool returns specific fields but does not disclose potential rate limits or other traits beyond what annotations indicate.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.
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 simple parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the source and return fields, which is sufficient for an agent to understand usage.
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?
There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate for a parameterless tool.
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 retrieves the latest stories from Lobsters and specifies the return fields (title, URL, publication time, score, tags). It is specific and distinct from siblings like get_story, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_hottest.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_hottest or other story-related tools. No usage context or exclusions are given.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., three tools for querying Pipeworx data (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research), and six tools for Polymarket prediction markets. The boundaries between them are unclear, causing potential for misselection.
Tool names are all snake_case but follow inconsistent patterns: some use verb_noun (get_hottest, get_newest), some are single verbs (remember, forget), and others are noun_noun (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage). While readable, the lack of a consistent pattern adds confusion.
With 34 tools, the server is overloaded, especially given its name 'Lobsters' suggests a focus on that site, yet only 4 tools are Lobsters-related. The majority belong to Pipeworx, Polymarket, and generic utilities, making the scope extremely broad and unfocused.
For the implied domain of Lobsters, the tool set is incomplete (missing create/update/delete). For the broader domains (Pipeworx, Polymarket), the set is extensive but doesn't align with the server's name. The lack of a coherent domain leaves obvious gaps relative to any single purpose.