Skip to main content
Glama

Metis · News Radar — Update Today Board

update_today_board

Fills a Today board (outbreaks, events, or funding) with web-found items, preserving manual entries and re-routing misfiled items to the correct board.

Instructions

Fill a Today-surface board (Outbreaks, Events or Funding) with items you found on the web.

Use this after web-searching for the researcher's field. The Outbreaks board is
modelled on WHO's Disease Outbreak News: the handful of outbreaks that MATTER
right now, each with a location and a date — not a mirror of any one
publisher's feed. (WHO retired the DON RSS feed; the page is the reference,
and ECDC's Communicable Disease Threats Report covers the gap.) The Events
board holds upcoming scientific congresses/conferences/symposia; the Funding
board holds open or upcoming research funding calls, grants and fellowships.
All three are curated — no RSS feed writes to them — so this tool is how
Claude Desktop (on the user's subscription, no API
rate limit) keeps them current — the dashboard's "Update" buttons open
a chat that calls this tool.

Replaces the previously tool-filled rows on that board; items the user curated or
added by hand are preserved.

EVERY ITEM IS CHECKED AGAINST THE BOARD IT CLAIMS. A congress or a committee
session sent to Outbreaks is filed under Events instead; a call for proposals
goes to Funding; a newsletter, bulletin, quarterly report or declaration
belongs on no board and is recorded as turned away, with the reason, rather
than silently dropped. So the saved count may be lower than the number of
items passed, and some may appear on a different board — the return value
says how many of each.

Args:
    board: "outbreaks", "events" or "funding".
    items: list of objects, each {"title": str, "url": str, "date": str (optional,
        event date or application deadline), "description": str (optional, one short
        sentence)}. Only include real items with a working http(s) URL.

Returns:
    dict: {ok, board, saved, re_routed, not_a_board_item} on success, or
    {ok: False, error} on failure.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
boardYes
itemsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.4

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that previously tool-filled rows are replaced while user-curated items are preserved, that every item is validated against the claimed board, that some items are re-routed or rejected with a reason, and that the return value reports these counts.

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 description is front-loaded and well organized, with purpose first, then usage, board definitions, validation behavior, and args. It is somewhat long and includes contextual asides about WHO and ECDC, but those details support correct Outbreaks-board usage rather than being pure filler.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains side effects, validation and re-routing behavior, argument formats, and the return value structure, leaving no major gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It enumerates the board values ("outbreaks", "events", "funding") and describes each item object's fields, including optional date and description plus the requirement for a working http(s) URL.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: filling a Today-surface board with web-found items. It distinguishes the three boards (Outbreaks, Events, Funding) and makes clear this is curated content rather than an RSS mirror. An agent can identify the tool's purpose 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?

It explicitly says to use this after web-searching for the researcher's field and explains that the dashboard's Update buttons trigger this tool. It also describes when an item does not belong on any board, but it does not name a sibling alternative for other update paths. The context is clear, though not a full when/when-not/alternatives routing guide.

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