Google News13 MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool does (gets news) without disclosing behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, pagination, or error handling. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what format the news is returned in, how many results to expect, whether there are limitations, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a news retrieval tool with no structured behavioral information, the description should provide more context about the operation.

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 schema already fully documents the single parameter (lr). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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's purpose as 'get technology news from Google News', specifying both the action (get) and resource (technology news). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on technology news specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other news categories like business or science.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 10 sibling tools including other news categories (business, health, science, etc.) and general search tools, the description offers no context about when technology news is appropriate versus using 'search' or other category-specific endpoints.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.