Real-Time News
Server Details
Real-time news and trending topics from major sources
- 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 has a distinct purpose: get_top_news retrieves only Hacker News top stories, get_trending combines both Hacker News and The Guardian for a topic, and search_guardian focuses solely on The Guardian. No overlap creates ambiguity.
All tool names follow the consistent 'get_<descriptor>' pattern using snake_case, making the naming predictable and easy to understand.
With three tools covering top news, trending topics, and Guardian-specific search, the count is appropriate for a focused news server. Each tool serves a clear need without unnecessary clutter.
The server provides good coverage for real-time news consumption, but lacks a direct Hacker News search and might benefit from a general article fetcher by ID. These are minor gaps that do not severely hinder typical workflows.
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?
Discloses returned fields but omits behavioral details like auth, rate limits, or data freshness. With no annotations, some transparency is provided.
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?
Single sentence with clear verb and resource, but could include limit constraint. Efficient overall.
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?
Fails to mention that the tool can fetch other story types (new, best, etc.) via 'type' parameter, potentially leading to misinterpretation. Incomplete for a simple tool with no output schema.
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 covers 100% of parameters, description adds no extra meaning beyond schema. Baseline score applies.
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 resource 'top stories from Hacker News', distinguishing it from siblings like '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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_trending' or 'search_guardian'. Lacks context for decision-making.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions combining two sources but does not explain how results are merged, ordered, or any limitations like rate limits or pagination. The agent lacks crucial behavioral context.
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, front-loaded sentence with 12 words. Every word serves a purpose, no 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?
Given the simple tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not thorough. It fails to explain return value format or behavioral details like ordering and combination logic.
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 parameter descriptions already provide meaning. The description adds 'for a given topic' which aligns with the topic parameter but does not add new semantics 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', the resource 'trending news', and specifies it combines Hacker News and The Guardian for a given topic. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_top_news (likely a single source) and search_guardian (search vs. trending).
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 from two sources but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_top_news or search_guardian. No when-not or alternative suggestions are given.
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?
No annotations provided; description lacks behavioral details such as rate limits, authentication, error handling, or return format. Only mentions filtering capabilities already in 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?
Two concise sentences with no filler. Front-loaded with purpose, efficient.
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?
Adequate for basic use with 4 parameters and no output schema, but missing details on result format, pagination, or error handling. Leaves gaps 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?
Schema covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal value beyond restating filter support; does not clarify parameter interaction or format beyond 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?
Clearly states 'Search The Guardian for news articles' with verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like get_top_news and get_trending by implying it's for general 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?
Implied usage for general search queries against specific sets like top news or trending, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives 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!