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 key traits: the operation is permanent and irreversible, which is crucial for a destructive action. However, it doesn't cover other aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or rate limits, 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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by a critical warning about permanence. Both sentences are essential and earn their place, with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 (destructive operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the permanent nature but omits details like return values, error cases, or confirmation steps. For a deletion tool with no structured support, more context would be beneficial.

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 adds value by implying the newsletter is identified by ID, which aligns with the tool name, but since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it compensates adequately for the lack of param 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 clearly states the action ('deletes') and resource ('newsletter from Ghost CMS by ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling delete tools (e.g., ghost_delete_member, ghost_delete_page), which follow the same pattern, so it lacks sibling differentiation for 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, such as other delete tools in the sibling list or non-delete operations. It mentions the operation is permanent, which hints at caution, but doesn't specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage.

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