Fetch metadata and structured timestamped updates from one canonical NDTV live-blog article URL. Use this for event timelines; it accepts LiveBlogPosting stories only and returns BlogPosting update entries rather than flattened paragraphs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing that only LiveBlogPosting input types are accepted and that output is BlogPosting update entries rather than flattened paragraphs. It does not discuss failure behavior for non-live-blog URLs, leaving a small gap.
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?
Two tightly worded sentences: the first states the operation and its input constraint, the second covers usage and output shape. Nothing is repeated or wasted and the scoping constraint is front-loaded.
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?
With an output schema present, the description needn't restate return fields, and it correctly focuses on input constraints and intent. It is nearly complete for a single-parameter fetch tool, with only minor unexplored failure-mode context.
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 coverage is 0% and there is only one parameter, so the description carries the burden. It meaningfully constrains the argument to "one canonical NDTV live-blog article URL," clarifying both cardinality and expected URL type beyond a bare untyped string.
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?
States a specific verb ("Fetch") and resource (metadata plus structured timestamped updates from an NDTV live-blog article URL), and pins down scope ("one canonical ... URL"). It clearly differentiates from the article/listing siblings by restricting itself to LiveBlogPosting stories.
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?
"Use this for event timelines" gives explicit intent, and "accepts LiveBlogPosting stories only" is a routing constraint that steers agents away from ordinary article URLs. It stops short of naming the sibling alternatives (ndtv_article, ndtv_live_blogs) outright, so it does not reach the top band.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
