Skip to main content
Glama

Ghost MCP Server and API by Cotlet

List posts in Ghost

ghost_list_posts
Read-onlyIdempotent

List posts in the user's own Ghost account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in Ghost step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Ghost Cloud Browser. Ghost's official API: Ghost has a full REST Admin API, but no official MCP server (checked 17 Oct 2026).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ghost_list_posts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnly/destructive/idempotent annotations, it discloses the critical behavior that the tool 'opens nothing by itself' and returns procedural instructions (screens, buttons, fields). It leaves minor gaps around required connection state and the format of the returned steps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The key point is front-loaded, but filler such as 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' and the oddly specific '(checked 17 Oct 2026)' add noise without helping selection or invocation. The closing API context is relevant but could be tighter.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the indirect return value and the next action. It could specify whether the returned steps are plain text or structured, but annotations already cover safety expectations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to explain and the baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter detail because none is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource (posts in the user's own Ghost account) and clarifies the unexpected behavior: it returns a step-by-step guide rather than the posts. The opening 'List posts' could momentarily imply direct listing, but the next sentence corrects this.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly instructs the agent to use cotlet_browser_* tools to perform the actual listing after receiving the steps, and notes there is no official MCP server, explaining the browser-automation route. It does not compare against sibling Ghost tools, but the post-specific scope is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources