Fetch current TIME top stories with titles, URLs, summaries, authors, and publication times. Use it to retrieve top headlines or one section's stories.
Get TIME top stories. Returns the current top stories from TIME. It takes no parameters. Each item has its title, URL and, where available, a summary, author, publication time, image URL and type. Use the headlines endpoint to read one section.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (title, URL, optional summary, author, publication time, image URL, type) and that it takes no parameters, but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or freshness beyond 'current'. For a low-risk read feed this is adequate but not rich.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded and the sentences are short. There is mild redundancy between 'Get TIME top stories' and 'Returns the current top stories from TIME,' and 'It takes no parameters' is near-filler, but nothing is confusing or bloated.
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, parameterless news feed with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and when to prefer the headlines sibling. Only minor gaps (freshness/cadence, error behavior) remain, which are low-stakes here.
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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case per the rubric. The description reinforces this with 'It takes no parameters,' adding no ambiguity.
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 TIME top stories') and immediately clarifies scope as 'current top stories from TIME'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling headlines tool by routing section-based reads there, so an agent can tell the two apart.
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?
Provides a clear alternative: 'Use the headlines endpoint to read one section,' which tells the agent to pick time_headlines when it wants a single section rather than the top-stories feed. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are given, but the routing context is enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.