AgentNews
Server Details
Real-time news intelligence — Hacker News top/trending stories and The Guardian article search. Topic-based trending combining HN + Guardian across AI, crypto, science, tech, politics.
- 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 3.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct source or operation: get_top_news fetches Hacker News top stories, get_trending combines two sources for a topic, and search_guardian filters The Guardian. No two tools overlap in purpose.
All names use snake_case, but verb usage is inconsistent: two tools use 'get' while one uses 'search'. Also, 'get_trending' lacks an explicit object like 'news' that the others have. Minor deviation from a uniform pattern.
With only 3 tools, the server feels too thin for a news aggregation service. It covers only two sources and lacks common operations like article detail retrieval or source listing, making it incomplete for most use cases.
The tool surface has significant gaps: no way to get news from other major sources, no filtering options for Hacker News, no ability to fetch full article content or perform user-specific actions. Core workflows like browsing diverse news are not supported.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_top_newsBInspect
Get top stories from Hacker News. Returns title, URL, score, author, and comment count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Story type: top, new, best, ask, show (default: top) | top |
| limit | No | Number of stories (max 30, default 20) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication, or side effects. However, as a simple read operation, it is decently transparent by stating it returns specific fields.
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?
Very concise single sentence. No extra words, but could be front-loaded with key information. Still efficient and clear.
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. Parameters are fully documented in schema. However, it lacks context about sibling differentiation and usage scenarios. Adequate for a simple tool but not fully comprehensive.
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%, both parameters have descriptions. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema for parameters. It does add output field information, but that is not parameter semantics.
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 it gets top stories from Hacker News and lists returned fields (title, URL, score, author, comment count). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_trending' which might also provide trending 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?
The description only says 'Get top stories from Hacker News' and gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_trendingAInspect
Get trending news combining Hacker News and The Guardian for a given topic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of items (max 30, default 10) | |
| topic | No | Topic: ai, crypto, science, politics, tech (default: tech) | tech |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits beyond the schema. It mentions combining two sources, but omits details like rate limits, pagination, or whether the tool is read-only, leaving significant gaps for safe invocation.
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 focused sentence of 13 words, front-loading the action and resource ('Get trending news'), with no unnecessary 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 simplicity of the tool (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but fails to explain the output format or how the combination of sources works, which could aid an agent.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds no new information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides (topic and limit with defaults and constraints).
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' and the resource 'trending news', specifying the combination of Hacker News and The Guardian for a given topic, which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_top_news and search_guardian.
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 for trending news across two sources but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, such as when only one source is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_guardianAInspect
Search The Guardian for news articles. Supports filtering by section and date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Search query (default: artificial intelligence) | artificial intelligence |
| limit | No | Number of articles (max 25, default 10) | |
| section | No | Section filter: technology, science, business, world, politics | |
| date_from | No | Filter articles from this date (YYYY-MM-DD) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only restates filtering by section and date, which is already in the schema. No insight into rate limits, pagination, error handling, or default behavior beyond parameter defaults.
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: first establishes purpose, second lists key capabilities. No redundant information, efficiently front-loaded.
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 4 optional parameters with full schema coverage but no output schema, the description is adequate for basic use but lacks details on output format, pagination, or behavior when no results are found.
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 baseline is 3. The description mentions filtering by section and date but adds no extra detail beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. No additional semantic value.
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 'Search' and the resource 'The Guardian' for news articles, indicating a search functionality distinct from sibling tools (get_top_news, get_trending) which cover top and trending content.
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 use for targeted searches with filtering options but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide exclusion criteria. Context signals show siblings are for top/trending, which helps but is not 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!