Fetch current TimesLIVE section headlines by passing an editorial section slug; returns the first 15 live-order stories from the public Arc feed.
Get TimesLIVE section headlines. Returns current TimesLIVE stories from the public Arc section feed. Pass a slug from timeslive_sections; results are the first 15 items in the live section order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | TimesLIVE editorial section slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose meaningful traits: the data comes from the public Arc section feed and results are capped at the first 15 items in live section order. It omits any auth/rate-limit detail, but for a public read feed the ordering and truncation disclosures are the useful ones.
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 purpose, then source, then input and result behavior. No filler and nothing repeated.
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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, data source, valid-input origin, result count, and ordering. It is nearly complete; only explicit auth/rate-limit or refresh-cadence information is missing.
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 already enumerates all 23 valid slugs, so the baseline is 3. The description's pointer to timeslive_sections adds a little sourcing value, but since the enum already lists every valid value, it does not meaningfully extend parameter understanding.
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 ('Get') and resource ('TimesLIVE section headlines') and distinguishes itself from siblings by scoping to section-level headlines drawn from the Arc section feed. An agent can separate it from timeslive_article, timeslive_news, and timeslive_sections without opening any schema.
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 tells the agent where the required input comes from ('Pass a slug from timeslive_sections'), which is real routing guidance. It does not state when not to use it or name an alternative for full-article retrieval, so it stops short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.