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 that the operation is destructive ('Deletes') and irreversible ('permanent'), which are critical traits for a deletion tool. However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or response format.

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 ('Deletes a tag') and adds crucial behavioral detail ('permanent') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 destructive operation with 0 parameters but likely needing input), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the permanence but misses details like how to obtain the tag ID, what happens on success/failure, or confirmation prompts, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 specifying the deletion is 'by ID', implying an ID parameter might be expected elsewhere (though not in schema), which is helpful context for a tool that likely requires input in practice.

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 tag from Ghost CMS by ID'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ghost_delete_member or ghost_delete_post, which follow the same pattern but target different resources.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the tag ID from get_tags), exclusions, or contextual cues for selection among deletion tools for different resources.

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