Fetches Forbes headlines and article-card metadata for a specified section using a navigation path from /forbes/categories.
Forbes section headlines. Returns current Forbes article-card metadata from a public Forbes navigation path. Use /forbes/categories to discover paths.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | Forbes navigation path from /forbes/categories |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral weight; it does say the data is 'current' and from a 'public' path, signaling read-only access and a public source. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, limits, or the exact shape of the article-card metadata, so transparency is partial.
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 short sentences plus a routing hint, with no filler. The key output and the path-discovery instruction are front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.
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, low-complexity headline tool without an output schema, the description tells the agent where to get the path and what kind of data to expect. It could name return fields or pagination behavior, but the missing detail is minor for this use case.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is warranted. The description essentially restates the schema ('Forbes navigation path' / use /forbes/categories) and adds no format, example, or additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 names the resource 'Forbes section headlines' and states the output is 'current Forbes article-card metadata'. It is clear this is a headline-list fetch rather than full article content, though differentiation from sibling tools like forbes_article or forbes_categories is implicit rather than explicit.
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 concrete prerequisite ('Use /forbes/categories to discover paths') and establishes that a section path is required. It never states when to prefer this over forbes_article, forbes_author, or forbes_categories, so the usage guidance is mostly implied by the tool name rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.