Fetch Fortune top stories with titles, URLs, summaries, publication times, authors, and images; for a single section, use fortune-headlines.
Get Fortune top stories. Returns the current Fortune top stories. Each item has its title, URL, summary, publication time, author and image. Takes no parameters; use fortune-headlines for a single section.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 behavioral burden. It discloses that the call takes no parameters and enumerates returned item fields (title, URL, summary, publication time, author, image), which is useful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about item count, pagination, freshness window, or rate limits.
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 purpose and ending with the sibling routing hint. Slight redundancy between 'Get Fortune top stories' and 'Returns the current Fortune top stories' costs a point but nothing is padding.
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 no-param feed with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and the main alternative, which covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. Missing count/pagination detail keeps it from a 5.
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?
Zero-parameter tool, so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly confirms 'Takes no parameters', reinforcing the empty schema and preventing an agent from hunting for filters that do not exist.
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 Fortune top stories') and immediately differentiates from the sibling fortune_headlines by contrasting top stories with 'a single section'. An agent can pick this over fortune_headlines without opening either schema.
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?
Names the alternative ('use `fortune-headlines` for a single section') and the condition that selects it, which is exactly the routing signal needed. It does not state exclusions beyond that one alternative, so it stops short of a full when/when-not treatment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.