claude-news
Server Details
Real-time Claude & Anthropic news from your own Claude — free, no API key.
- 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 3.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Recent news returns the latest articles, while search news allows querying within the last month. Although there is potential overlap, the descriptions clearly differentiate the use cases (latest vs. search).
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (recent_news, search_news) with snake_case, making them predictable.
With only 2 tools, the server feels underdeveloped for a news domain. Users might expect additional tools like get_article, list_categories, or pagination support.
The server lacks basic operations such as retrieving news by category, date range filtering (beyond last month), or fetching a single article by ID. The surface is minimal and leaves significant gaps.
Available Tools
2 toolsrecent_newsBInspect
Renvoie les dernières actualités de Claude / Anthropic du corpus Claude News.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Nombre d'articles (défaut 10). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'returns latest news' without disclosing behavioral traits like caching, freshness, rate limits, or output format. This is insufficient for a tool with no output schema.
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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and provides essential purpose efficiently.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be improved by hinting at output format or data source freshness. Without that, it feels slightly incomplete.
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% for the single optional parameter 'limit'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.
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 returns the latest news from Claude/Anthropic from the Claude News corpus. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the distinction from the sibling 'search_news' is implicit (recent vs search).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs the sibling 'search_news'. It does not mention prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_newsAInspect
Recherche dans le corpus Claude News : l'actualité de Claude et d'Anthropic (modèles, Claude Code, recherche, sécurité, business) du dernier mois. Renvoie les articles pertinents avec titre, source, date, catégorie, résumé et URL à citer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Nombre de résultats (défaut 8, max 25). | |
| query | Yes | La requête de recherche (FR ou EN). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It provides behavioral context: the search is limited to the last month's corpus and returns specific fields. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any authentication needs, or rate limits. Given the search nature, the description is adequate but not thorough.
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 sentences, front-loading the corpus and time frame, then listing return fields. It is concise and free of extraneous detail, though a bit more structure could improve clarity.
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 output schema, the description explains return fields. It also sets expectations for corpus and time range. However, it lacks comparison with the sibling tool and details on pagination or ordering, which are partially compensated by parameter 'limit'.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the default limit (8) and maximum (25), and stating that the query can be in French or English. This provides useful context 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 tool searches a specific corpus (Claude News, last month) for articles. It lists return fields (title, source, date, category, summary, URL). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'recent_news', leaving some ambiguity.
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 implies usage context (searching for Claude/Anthropic news) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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!