Fetch headlines from a specified Times of Israel section by slug; returns structured JSON for news monitoring or aggregation.
Get Times of Israel section headlines. Returns fresh headlines from one public Times of Israel section.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | Times of Israel section slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'fresh headlines' and 'one public section', which gives some behavioral context (recency, scoping). However, it doesn't disclose output structure, pagination, or any potential rate limits. For a simple read tool, 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and a brief note on freshness and scope. It is concise without superfluous words, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
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?
The tool has a single enum parameter and no output schema. The description explains the purpose and that it returns fresh headlines from a section, but doesn't specify the format or number of headlines. This is probably sufficient for a simple headlines tool, but lacks details that could help an agent interpret the response.
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% – the parameter `section` has a description and an enum. The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, except it reinforces that the section is public. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the action: 'Get Times of Israel section headlines'. It names the resource and the specific operation. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like timesofisrael_news or timesofisrael_sections, but the combination of 'section headlines' is distinct enough to infer purpose.
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 description implies usage: it returns headlines from one public section, so an agent knows it needs a section parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like timesofisrael_sections (for listing sections) or timesofisrael_news (for general news). No alternatives are named, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.