Ghost MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'customizable sender settings and display options,' hinting at configuration aspects, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as required permissions, whether creation is irreversible, default settings, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Creates a new newsletter') and adds relevant details without waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, or error handling. For a create tool in a CMS context, more completeness would be beneficial, but it meets the baseline for a simple operation.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by hinting at customizable options ('sender settings and display options'), which provides semantic context beyond the empty schema. This compensates appropriately, though it doesn't detail specific parameters.

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 verb ('Creates') and resource ('a new newsletter in Ghost CMS'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like ghost_create_post or ghost_create_page by specifying the newsletter resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with ghost_update_newsletter or ghost_delete_newsletter, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin access), when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing newsletters), or refer to sibling tools like ghost_update_newsletter for modifications. Usage is implied by the 'Creates' verb but lacks explicit context.

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