Fetch top TimesLIVE stories using its public RSS feed. Get current headlines and section-specific news; article access varies by story.
Get TimesLIVE top stories. Returns current TimesLIVE stories from its public anonymous Arc RSS feed. Section-specific headlines use the public TimesLIVE content feed; article access can vary by story.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses provenance (public anonymous Arc RSS feed) and a real caveat that 'article access can vary by story,' which is useful reliability context. However, it says nothing about pagination, result counts, or rate behavior.
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 core purpose in sentence one. Slightly repetitive in echoing 'TimesLIVE' repeatedly and in re-explaining the feed, but there is no filler bloat.
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-argument feed tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned (current top stories), the data source, and the key caveat about article access. Return shape and volume are left unsaid, but that gap is minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 and the schema contains no properties, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level meaning is needed here.
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 TimesLIVE top stories') that an agent can immediately understand. It gestures at differentiation from the headlines/sections siblings by mentioning feeds for section-specific headlines, but never names those siblings explicitly, so the boundary remains slightly blurred.
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 explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The mention that 'section-specific headlines use the public TimesLIVE content feed' implies a scope distinction with the headlines/sections tools, but the agent must infer the routing rule itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.