Ghost MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions optional filtering, pagination, and includes, which adds some behavioral context beyond basic retrieval. However, it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, response format, or error handling, which are critical for a tool with potential complexity in filtering and pagination.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and key features (filtering, pagination, includes) without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and appropriately concise.

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 0 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally complete by stating the purpose and hinting at features. However, for a tool that likely involves complex filtering and pagination, more details on behavior, response structure, or usage examples would be beneficial to fully guide the 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, meaning no parameters are defined. The description adds value by mentioning optional filtering, pagination, and includes, suggesting these are handled implicitly or through other means (e.g., query parameters not in schema). This compensates for the lack of schema parameters, though it doesn't specify exact semantics.

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 verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('list of members (subscribers) from Ghost CMS'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from sibling 'ghost_get_member' (singular) by indicating a list operation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'ghost_search_members' beyond mentioning optional filtering.

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 mentions optional filtering, pagination, and includes, which implies usage for retrieving members with those features. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ghost_search_members' or 'ghost_get_member', leaving the agent to infer based on naming alone.

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