Skip to main content
Glama

isNewContent

Check if content items from YouTube, blogs, or releases are new by tracking previously seen items across sessions to avoid duplicates.

Instructions

Return true if this content item has NOT been seen before.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
typeYes

Implementation Reference

  • The execute handler for isNewContent tool, which checks if the given content ID of a specific type has been seen before using hasSeen helper and returns { is_new: true/false }.
    execute: async ({ id, type }) =>
      JSON.stringify({
        is_new: !(await hasSeen(type, id)),
      }),
  • Zod input schema defining parameters: id (string) and type (enum: youtube/blog/release).
    parameters: z.object({
      id: z.string(),
      type: z.enum(["youtube", "blog", "release"]),
    }),
  • src/server.ts:167-178 (registration)
    Registration of the isNewContent tool using server.addTool, including name, description, schema, and handler.
    server.addTool({
      name: "isNewContent",
      description: "Return true if this content item has NOT been seen before.",
      parameters: z.object({
        id: z.string(),
        type: z.enum(["youtube", "blog", "release"]),
      }),
      execute: async ({ id, type }) =>
        JSON.stringify({
          is_new: !(await hasSeen(type, id)),
        }),
    });
  • Core helper function used by the handler to determine if a content ID of given type has been previously seen.
    async function hasSeen(type: string, id: string) {
      const data = await loadLastSeen();
      return data.seen?.[type]?.includes(id);
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a boolean based on novelty, but doesn't explain how novelty is determined (e.g., based on a database, cache, or session), what 'seen before' means, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (checking novelty with 2 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on how novelty is assessed, parameter meanings, and expected return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It doesn't mention the 'id' or 'type' parameters at all, nor does it explain their roles (e.g., 'id' as content identifier, 'type' as content category). With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Return true if this content item has NOT been seen before.' This specifies the verb ('return true if...') and resource ('content item'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'markContentSeen' which might be related. The purpose is specific but lacks sibling distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for checking content novelty, or how it relates to siblings like 'markContentSeen' (which might mark content as seen). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/EbonyLouis/content-fetcher-mcp2'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server