Palestine desk timeline (evidence-classed events) with a freshness indicator, plus the desk section map (Now / The Record / Israel Exposed wings with canonical page URLs).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the content structure (timeline, evidence classes, freshness indicator, section map) but omits important behaviors: how the freshness indicator is computed, whether the tool filters by status or limit, what the default response looks like, and whether any side effects or authentication are involved.
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?
The description is a single, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the main content (timeline) and adds the section map component. No unnecessary words, but the density might slightly reduce readability. Still, it is appropriately concise for the content covered.
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?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and two parameters with zero explanation, the description is incomplete. It explains what the tool provides (timeline and section map) but not how to control the query via parameters, what the freshness indicator means, or the structure of the returned data. Sibling tools suggest a broader news desk context, but the description fails to connect to that 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 description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the 'limit' or 'status' parameters at all, nor does it explain how they affect the timeline. The enum values (verified, cross_verified, pending, leak) are self-explanatory from the schema, but the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema.
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?
The description clearly identifies the resource: a timeline of evidence-classed Palestine desk events with a freshness indicator, plus a section map. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the Palestine desk focus and the inclusion of section wings and canonical URLs, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as asha_breaking, asha_daily_brief, or conflict_events. The description implies it is for timeline and section navigation, but does not state use cases, exclusions, or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.