Retrieve the public Fortune editorial section inventory to discover available sections for browsing, categorization, or feed setup.
Get Fortune sections. Returns the public Fortune editorial section inventory.
| 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the operation is a read-only retrieval of public inventory data. It does not describe output shape or pagination, but there is no mutation or hidden behavior suggested.
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 with no filler. The core verb and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the key scoping detail that this is a public editorial inventory.
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 inventory tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it identifies the resource, the scope, and the general output type. Additional details like exact response fields would be nice but are not necessary for correct invocation.
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 has zero parameters, so parameter documentation is not needed. The baseline of 4 applies; the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter info.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get Fortune sections' and clarifies the output as 'the public Fortune editorial section inventory.' It is clear about what it does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling *_sections tools.
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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fortune_article, fortune_headlines, or other *_sections tools. The intended use is only implied by the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.