Skip to main content
Glama
berlinbra

News API MCP Server

by berlinbra

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.
  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: retrieving sources, top headlines by criteria, and searching articles. No overlap.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get-news-sources, get-top-headlines, search-news), using snake_case.

    Tool Count4/5

    3 tools is slightly minimal but appropriate for a focused news API server. Could include more endpoints but not excessive.

    Completeness4/5

    Covers core news retrieval tasks (sources, headlines, search). Missing explicit article retrieval by ID, but still functional for typical use cases.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available
  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
      "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
      "maintainers": [
        "your-github-username"
      ]
    }

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get available news sources', implying a read-only operation, but does not confirm safety, rate limits, or any side effects. The lack of explicit read-only or idempotent declaration leaves room for uncertainty.

    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 one short sentence, achieving conciseness with no wasted words. However, it could include additional useful context (e.g., output format) without becoming verbose. It is efficient but minimal.

    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 three optional filter parameters and absence of output schema, the description does not inform the agent about return values (e.g., list of source objects with names, URLs). This lack of output context makes the tool less complete for an agent deciding whether to use it.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    Since schema coverage is 100% and all parameters have clear descriptions with enums, the description adds no extra meaning. The baseline is 3, and the description does not compensate beyond the schema.

    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 verb 'Get' and resource 'available news sources', indicating the tool retrieves a list of sources. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get-top-headlines or search-news, which could be clearer by specifying that it returns metadata about sources rather than articles.

    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 does not mention that filters (category, language, country) are available, nor does it explain that this tool is for listing sources rather than fetching headlines or articles.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose pagination behavior, result limits, or output structure. The return format (articles) is implied but not stated.

    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?

    Extremely concise single sentence. No wasted words, but lacks structural elements like bullet points or section breaks. Efficient but borderline terse.

    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?

    With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how parameters interact (e.g., mutually exclusive constraints), pagination defaults, or the nature of results (headline objects).

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond listing the filtering dimensions already captured by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

    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 retrieves top headlines and identifies filtering dimensions (country, category, source). It distinguishes from siblings as it focuses on top headlines, while get-news-sources lists sources and search-news likely returns broader results. However, it does not explicitly contrast with search-news.

    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?

    No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (get-news-sources, search-news). No information about prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, and the description only states the purpose without disclosing behavioral details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or full return format. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.

    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 a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. Every word is purposeful, but it may be overly brief for the tool's complexity.

    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?

    With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the return format and pagination behavior. It only provides a high-level purpose, leaving the agent without key operational details.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage scenarios.

    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?

    Description states 'Search for news articles on any topic', clearly indicating the tool's function as a search tool. The sibling tools 'get-news-sources' and 'get-top-headlines' are implicitly differentiated by their purposes, but no explicit contrast is made.

    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 its siblings (e.g., top headlines, sources). An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

news-api-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

news-api-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/berlinbra/news-api-mcp'

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