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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the ID is invalid. 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 directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 complexity of retrieving a single item by ID, the description is incomplete. There are no annotations, no output schema, and it doesn't explain what the return value includes (e.g., newsletter details, error cases). For a tool that likely involves data retrieval with potential ID validation, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description adds value by specifying that retrieval is 'by ID', implying an ID is needed, but since there are no parameters, this might hint at a potential inconsistency. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the description provides some context beyond the empty schema.

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 newsletter from Ghost CMS by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'ghost_get_newsletters' (plural), which retrieves multiple newsletters, though this distinction is implied by 'single' vs. the sibling's plural name.

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 'ghost_get_newsletters' for listing multiple newsletters or other get tools for different resources. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic purpose.

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