Skip to main content
Glama
SVerITG

Metis

by SVerITG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Metis · News Radar — Check News Feeds

check_news_feeds

Check every news or paper feed and report which ones are working, flagging HTTP errors that otherwise appear as zero new items.

Instructions

Check every news feed and report which ones are actually working.

Why this exists: feedparser never raises on an HTTP error — it returns an
object with zero entries. So a feed returning 404 or 403 was indistinguishable
from a quiet news day, and `scan_news_feeds` reported "0 new items" either way.
Measured 2026-08-19: 14 of 33 news feeds were HTTP-dead and had been
contributing nothing, silently. That is the real reason the News surface looked
thin — not too few sources, but sources that never answered.

Requests are sequential and spaced, because hammering publishers in parallel
produces 403s that are rate limiting rather than real rejections.

Args:
    kind: "news" (journalism, the News surface), "paper" (journal ToCs and
        preprints, the Library), or "all". Default "news".

Returns:
    Per feed: working (with entry count and newest publication date) or the
    HTTP status that needs fixing.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNonews

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses the feedparser silent-failure behavior, that requests are sequential and deliberately spaced to avoid false 403s (i.e., the call is slow and rate-limit-aware), and that per-feed results are either working status plus recency or an HTTP status to fix. These are exactly the traits an agent needs to interpret results and set expectations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The operational content is front-loaded in the first sentence and the remaining paragraphs are structured (why / behavior / args / returns). The anecdotal 2026-08-19 measurement (14 of 33 feeds dead) is persuasive but longer than needed — it earns partial place as motivation but could be one clause.

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

Completeness5/5

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

A one-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema, yet the description still covers motivation, rate-limit behavior, parameter meanings, and the shape of results. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the schema exposes no enum, so the description must define `kind` — and it does, mapping 'news' to the News surface, 'paper' to journal ToCs/preprints in the Library, and 'all' to both, plus the default. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The first line states a specific verb and resource — check every feed and report which are working — and the body contrasts it with `scan_news_feeds`, which reports item counts without distinguishing dead feeds. An agent can tell this is a diagnostic tool, not a content-fetch tool, without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The 'Why this exists' section makes the selection condition clear in practice: when a scan reports 0 items and you need to know whether feeds are dead or merely quiet, use this instead of `scan_news_feeds`. It stops short of an explicit directive ('call this before/after scanning when X'), so it is strong context rather than a full when-to-use rule.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools