Retrieve the complete public editorial section list accepted by the TimesLIVE headlines endpoint, excluding Sunday Times, partner, podcast, account, and link-only surfaces.
Get TimesLIVE sections. Returns the complete public editorial navigation set accepted by the TimesLIVE headlines endpoint. External Sunday Times, partner, podcast, account, and link-only surfaces are excluded.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add real value by enumerating what is excluded (Sunday Times, partner, podcast, account, link-only surfaces), which prevents false expectations about completeness. It says nothing about the return shape or ordering, though the operation is a clearly read-only, parameterless listing, limiting the practical risk.
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?
Two sentences with no waste: the first gives purpose, the second gives scope. Scope constraints are front-loaded and nothing is 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 zero-parameter, read-only listing with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essential information: what it returns and what it deliberately omits. Missing only minor detail such as the format of returned section identifiers, which an agent may need to chain into the headlines endpoint.
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, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly frames the output as a complete accepted set rather than a filterable query, which matches the empty schema.
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 sections') and clarifies the scope as the navigation set consumed by the TimesLIVE headlines endpoint. It implies a relationship to the sibling timeslive_headlines but does not explicitly name which sibling to use for other needs, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
The mention that these sections are 'accepted by the TimesLIVE headlines endpoint' implies the tool is a lookup to discover valid section values before calling headlines, which is usable context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative (e.g., timeslive_news or timeslive_headlines) to route the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.