Retrieve current TimesLIVE headlines for a specific section by providing its slug. Returns the first 15 stories in live order.
Get TimesLIVE section headlines. Returns current TimesLIVE stories for a section. 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 carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the two traits that matter most here: results are capped at the first 15 items and follow the live section order. The read-only nature is implied by "Get/Returns", though auth needs, freshness behavior, and error handling are not mentioned.
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 tight sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the purpose before the usage detail. There is slight redundancy between "headlines" in sentence one and "stories" in sentence two, but overall it is efficiently structured.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, how to obtain a valid slug, and the result cap/ordering. That is sufficient for correct invocation; only minor items like freshness semantics are absent, and no output schema exists so return-value detail is not required.
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% with a fully enumerated section parameter, so the schema already documents valid values (baseline 3). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by telling the agent where those values come from (timeslive_sections), which is useful cross-tool provenance not encoded in the enum.
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 and resource ("Get TimesLIVE section headlines") plus the scope ("stories for a section"), so the agent immediately knows what it returns. It references the sibling timeslive_sections as the source of valid slugs, giving partial sibling differentiation, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from other TimesLIVE listing tools like timeslive_news or timeslive_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 gives a clear prerequisite ("Pass a slug from timeslive_sections"), which is real usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as timeslive_news or timeslive_article, nor any exclusions, so the when-to-use decision is left largely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.