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 effectively communicates the destructive nature ('permanent and cannot be undone'), which is critical for a deletion tool. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., impact on subscriptions), or response behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core action, and the second adds crucial behavioral context. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and efficiently conveys necessary warnings without redundancy.

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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the permanent nature well but is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication needs, error handling, or what happens post-deletion (e.g., confirmation message). Given the complexity of a destructive operation, more context would improve agent safety and accuracy.

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, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and behavior, which aligns with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.

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 ('Deletes') and resource ('a member from Ghost CMS by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling delete tools (e.g., ghost_delete_post, ghost_delete_tag), though the resource specificity provides some implicit distinction.

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 like ghost_update_member or ghost_get_member. It mentions the operation is permanent, which hints at caution, but doesn't specify prerequisites, error conditions, or contextual triggers for choosing deletion over other actions.

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