Ghost MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Creates' which implies a write operation, but doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., if tags are publicly visible), authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns the created tag). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 that this is a mutation tool (creating a tag) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is needed for creation (though parameters are 0, suggesting defaults or no input), what the tool returns, or any behavioral nuances. For a create operation, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate for missing schema information.

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 action ('Creates') and resource ('a new tag in Ghost CMS'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other 'create' siblings like ghost_create_member or ghost_create_post, which would require specifying what makes tag creation unique (e.g., tag-specific fields or context).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin permissions), when tag creation is appropriate (e.g., for organizing content), or how it differs from updating tags. The description is a standalone statement without context.

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