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. It describes the retrieval action but lacks behavioral details such as error handling (e.g., what happens if no member is found), authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 purpose ('Retrieves a single member') and follows with essential usage details ('by ID or email'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise 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 (retrieving data from a CMS), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, authentication, or response structure, which are crucial for an AI agent to use the tool effectively in context.

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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description compensates by specifying that either 'id' or 'email' should be provided, adding meaningful semantics beyond the empty schema. However, it doesn't detail the format or constraints of these 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 action ('Retrieves') and resource ('a single member from Ghost CMS'), and specifies the lookup methods ('by ID or email'). It distinguishes from sibling 'ghost_get_members' by focusing on a single member, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'ghost_search_members' which might also retrieve members.

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 basic usage context by stating 'Provide either id OR email', which implies mutual exclusivity of parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ghost_get_members' (for multiple members) or 'ghost_search_members' (for filtered searches), leaving some ambiguity.

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