Fetch headlines from a specified The Japan Times section to retrieve public article cards for news monitoring, research, and briefings.
Get The Japan Times section headlines. Returns public article cards from one canonical section page. This site's section pages are HTML; only the top stories surface has a verified RSS feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | Canonical section slug from japantimes-sections |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results come from a single canonical section page (one section per call), that these pages are HTML, and that only the top-stories surface has a verified RSS feed. It says nothing about pagination, result counts, rate limits, or error behavior.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds something (return shape, one-section-per-call constraint, HTML/RSS caveat). No filler.
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?
For a one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description omits how many cards are returned and whether there is paging. The HTML/RSS note is helpful context, but the agent still lacks enough to predict the response body.
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 100% and the enum fully enumerates valid slugs, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the framing that the slug maps to a single canonical section page, which is marginal value over 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get The Japan Times section headlines') and clarifies the return shape ('public article cards from one canonical section page'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like japantimes_news or japantimes_sections, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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?
Usage is only implied: the schema note that 'section' is a 'Canonical section slug from japantimes-sections' hints at a prerequisite lookup tool, and the RSS remark hints at a different surface for top stories. There is no explicit when-to-use vs japantimes_news guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.