Return 787daily articles that mention a specific Puerto Rico municipality, newest-first. Accepts canonical names and common variants (e.g. 'San Juan', 'Ponce', 'Rincón'). Returns { name, count, articles[] }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Municipality name, e.g. 'San Juan', 'Ponce', 'Rincon' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses ordering ('newest-first') and the return shape ({ name, count, articles[] }), making clear this is a read-only operation. However, it omits edge-case behavior such as empty results, unknown names, or any limits.
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?
Two concise sentences, each serving a purpose. The first sentence states the action and target; the second covers variants and return shape. No wasted words 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?
With only one parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context: purpose, ordering, accepted name formats, and a return structure. It is adequate for a straightforward tool, though it doesn't mention potential error responses or maximum result counts.
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 coverage is 100% with the 'name' parameter already described. The description adds value by mentioning that common variants are accepted and gives an accent-sensitive example ('Rincón') that clarifies input flexibility beyond the schema's basic examples.
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 ('Return') and resource ('787daily articles') with a clear scope ('mention a specific Puerto Rico municipality'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_by_entity and search_news by focusing on municipalities.
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 clearly implies use for municipality-specific article queries, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct users to alternatives (e.g., get_by_entity for other entity types). No exclusions are stated, so it stops short of 5.
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 have clearly distinct purposes: ask synthesizes answers, search_news does semantic retrieval, keyword_search_news does keyword matching, and the get_/list_ tools target specific data types. However, search_pr_news is a redundant alias, and get_by_entity vs get_by_municipality overlap on place queries, creating minor ambiguity.
Tool names use a mix of prefixes (get_, list_, search_) and include a bare verb (ask), which is not fully consistent. The legacy alias search_pr_news further deviates from the pattern, though the rest are readable and predictable.
With 13 tools spanning news, Q&A, weather, cost-of-living, and safety, the count fits the server's broad purpose without being excessive. Each major domain has dedicated tools, and despite one redundant alias, the set remains well-scoped.
The tool set covers article discovery, synthesis, weather, demographics, and safety statistics, providing solid domain coverage. Minor gaps include no full-text article retrieval and no dedicated section browsing, but summaries and links make these workable.