V³ News
Server Details
Cited geopolitical events, multi-perspective briefs, and live breaking news from V³ News.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.5/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool has a clear and distinct purpose: breaking events, event detail, global pulse, brief, and search. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent 'v3_verb_noun' pattern in snake_case, making them predictable and easy to use.
With only 5 tools, the server covers the core functionality—search, breaking, detail, global overview, and brief—without being bloated or sparse.
The tool surface covers the full workflow: search for events, get breaking news, retrieve details, view global pulse, and read daily brief. No obvious gaps for a news intelligence server.
Available Tools
5 toolsv3_breaking_nowARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Get events V³ is currently tracking in BREAKING tempo — fast- moving stories under near-real-time monitoring right now.
Use when the user asks "what's breaking", "any breaking news", or about a developing situation. Returns an empty list when nothing is in breaking tempo (a quiet news moment), which is itself a signal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context about tracking 'breaking tempo' and near-real-time monitoring, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.
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?
Four sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose, second gives usage examples, third explains empty list signal. No filler or repetition. Front-loaded with critical information.
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?
Given zero parameters, full annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and when to use it. It also interprets the empty result as a signal, adding completeness.
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?
Input schema has 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information. No extra value needed beyond the schema.
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 verb 'Get events' and specific resource 'V³ breaking tempo', distinguishing it from sibling tools like v3_search_events (search) and v3_latest_brief (brief, not events). It precisely conveys the scope of fast-moving, near-real-time stories.
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?
Explicitly tells when to use the tool: when user asks 'what's breaking', 'any breaking news', or about developing situations. Also explains the meaning of an empty list (quiet news moment). No explicit when-not, but the context is clear enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
v3_get_eventARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Get a single V³ event: headline, why-it-matters, scores, and how much structured analysis V³ holds on it (perspectives, decisions, outcomes).
Use after v3_search_events (or v3_breaking_now) when the user wants
detail on a specific event. This returns V³'s public summary; the
full country-by-country perspectives, timeline, decisions to watch,
and calibrated outcomes are on v3.news at the returned url (a V³
account unlocks the multi-perspective analysis).
Args:
event_id: the V³ event id from a prior tool result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds that it returns a public summary and that V³ account unlocks more analysis, providing extra context beyond annotations.
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?
Description is concise (two short paragraphs plus one-line arg spec), front-loaded with return value summary, and 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?
Given output schema exists, description covers key return fields, usage context, parameter source, and points to URL for deeper content. Low parameter count and comprehensive annotations make this complete.
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?
Only parameter event_id is documented in description as 'the V³ event id from a prior tool result', adding context beyond the schema's type and title. Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates well.
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?
Description clearly states 'Get a single V³ event' and lists exact return fields (headline, why-it-matters, scores, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like v3_search_events which list events.
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?
Explicitly instructs to use after v3_search_events or v3_breaking_now for detail, providing clear when-to-use context and naming alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
v3_global_pulseARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Get V³'s Global Pulse — the world's current risk/impact/signal reading and how it has moved over a recent window.
Use when the user asks how tense/volatile the world is right now,
whether global risk is rising or falling, or wants a one-number
situational read rather than a specific event. Scores are 0-100
aggregates across everything V³ tracks (risk = downside pressure,
impact = consequence, signal = momentum, priority = attention
weight).
Args:
window_days: trailing window for the trend, 2-90 (default 14).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| window_days | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description adds meaning: scores are 0-100 aggregates, explains components (risk, impact, signal, priority). It doesn't contradict annotations. Slight deduction for not detailing trend computation further.
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?
Concise two-paragraph format with an Args section. Front-loaded with purpose and usage. Every sentence is informative and necessary, no wasted words.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (aggregate global score), single optional parameter, and safe annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (current reading and trend) and explains the aggregate components. Output schema exists but is not shown; description is self-sufficient.
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 0%, but the description fully explains 'window_days': trailing window for the trend, range 2-90, default 14. This adds critical context beyond the schema's type and default.
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 'Get V³'s Global Pulse — the world's current risk/impact/signal reading and how it has moved over a recent window.' It distinguishes from siblings like v3_breaking_now by focusing on a one-number situational read rather than specific events.
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?
Explicitly states 'Use when the user asks how tense/volatile the world is right now, whether global risk is rising or falling, or wants a one-number situational read rather than a specific event.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
v3_latest_briefARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Get V³'s latest global intelligence brief — the chief-of-staff top line on what matters in the world right now, with per-category state and counts.
Use when the user asks for a world summary, "what's happening today", or a geopolitical situation overview.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context about content ('chief-of-staff top line', 'per-category state and counts'), enhancing understanding beyond 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no redundancy. Front-loads the core action and follows with usage guidance. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given no parameters, rich annotations, and presence of output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. Could mention output format details, but it's sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.
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?
Input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. Description does not need to add parameter details; it completes the picture by describing the tool's function.
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 explicitly states the tool retrieves V³'s latest global intelligence brief, with per-category state and counts. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., v3_breaking_now, v3_search_events) by specifying the content type and scope.
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 clear usage scenarios: 'when the user asks for a world summary, what's happening today, or a geopolitical situation overview.' No explicit exclusions, but the context adequately guides selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
v3_search_eventsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Search V³ News for tracked geopolitical events.
Use when the user asks what is happening on a topic, in a country,
or in a domain (e.g. security, energy, finance, technology). Returns
a ranked list of events with why-it-matters, risk/impact/signal
scores, and a v3.news link for each.
Args:
query: free-text topic (e.g. "Iran sanctions", "Taiwan"). Optional.
country: ISO-3166 alpha-2 code to filter by (e.g. "US", "CN"). Optional.
category: V³ category slug — one of geopolitics, security_risk,
energy_resources, finance, markets, macroeconomics,
public_finance, trade_supply, technology, science_biosecurity,
environment_climate, business. Optional.
limit: max results, 1-20 (default 10).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| country | No | ||
| category | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so description adds some behavioral context (returns ranked list with scores and links), but does not disclose any additional side effects or constraints.
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?
Efficiently structured: single sentence purpose, usage context, then Arg list. No fluff, though could be slightly more concise.
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?
Given the presence of output schema and rich annotations, the description covers usage, parameters, and return summary. Complete for a search tool.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter with examples, ISO code format, and list of category slugs. Very helpful.
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?
Clearly states it searches V³ News for tracked geopolitical events. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like v3_breaking_now or v3_global_pulse, though usage guidance hints at scenarios.
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?
Provides clear context: 'Use when the user asks what is happening on a topic, in a country, or in a domain...' No explicit exclusion of alternatives, but context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!