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 arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context that the brief is a 'chief-of-staff top line' with 'per-category state and counts', which enhances understanding of the output content without contradicting 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?
The description is extremely concise: two clear, front-loaded sentences. The first defines the tool's purpose and content, the second provides usage scenarios. No wasted words; every sentence 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 an output schema (which covers return format), the description provides sufficient context: it names the tool's output ('global intelligence brief', 'per-category state and counts') and usage cases. No gaps remain.
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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (vacuously), the description naturally adds no parameter info. According to guidelines, baseline is 4 for 0 parameters. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, so score is 4.
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 'V³'s latest global intelligence brief' with 'per-category state and counts'. It uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'global intelligence brief', distinguishing it from sibling tools like v3_breaking_now or v3_global_pulse which have different scopes.
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 explicitly says to use it when the user asks for a 'world summary', 'what's happening today', or 'geopolitical situation overview'. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or contrast with siblings, the use cases are clear and cover typical scenarios.
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.
The tool set contains two overlapping search tools ('search' and 'v3_search_events') and two overlapping fetch tools ('fetch' and 'v3_get_event'), making it unclear which one an agent should call. The differences are not obvious from the names/descriptions alone, creating real selection ambiguity.
Naming is inconsistent: 'fetch' and 'search' are bare single verbs while the rest use a 'v3_' prefix with varied noun/verb forms like 'v3_breaking_now' and 'v3_global_pulse'. The pattern is not predictable enough for an agent to infer tool names.
Seven tools is a reasonable size for a news/intelligence server. However, at least two pairs are redundant, so the count feels slightly padded rather than tightly scoped.
The core workflow of searching/fetching events, checking breaking news, and getting a global pulse/brief is covered. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit category listing tool or way to compare multiple events side by side, but agents can work around these.
