Extract TIME article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical TIME article URL, returning structured JSON for reading, analysis, or archiving.
Get TIME article content. Returns public TIME article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical TIME article URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states it 'Returns public TIME article metadata and body paragraphs', which discloses the output and implies a read-only operation. It does not mention error handling, rate limits, or pagination, but for a simple retrieval tool this is acceptable and adds value beyond the name.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then specifying the return content. There is no fluff or redundancy; every word earns its place.
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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is nearly complete: it specifies the input, the return type, and the public nature of the data. It could mention potential limitations (e.g., paywall restrictions, URL format validation) but these are minor for a straightforward article fetcher.
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?
The schema describes the single parameter as 'Canonical TIME article URL' with 100% coverage. The description repeats 'canonical article URL' without adding new details like format, validation rules, or examples, so it provides minimal added 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('TIME article content'), and clarifies it returns metadata and body paragraphs. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like time_author, time_headlines, and other publication-specific article tools such as nzherald_article or newyorker_article.
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?
It provides clear context (this is for TIME articles) and indicates the input requirement (canonical URL), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The purpose is obvious enough from the name, but no exclusions or comparisons are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.