Retrieve TIME's top stories from its public RSS feed for direct access to current headlines.
Get TIME top stories. Returns fresh TIME top stories from its public RSS feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. It does add useful context by disclosing the source ('public RSS feed') and freshness of the data, which implies a safe read operation. However, it does not describe output shape, number of stories, pagination, or update behavior, leaving some behavior unknown.
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 very short and front-loaded, which is good. However, the two sentences are partly redundant: 'Get TIME top stories' and 'Returns fresh TIME top stories' essentially repeat the same core idea, so it does not earn a perfect score.
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 zero-parameter tool, the description covers the basics: what is returned, from where, and freshness. But because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves unspecified what a 'story' contains, how many are returned, and whether any rate limits or other call constraints exist.
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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The baseline 4 applies because the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters that do not exist.
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 states what the tool does: it gets TIME top stories from a public RSS feed. It is specific about the resource and source, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like time_headlines, time_article, or time_sections, so it misses the full sibling-differentiation test.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as time_headlines, time_article, or other news headline tools. The word 'fresh' implies current content, but the description never states exclusions, alternatives, or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.