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 states it's a retrieval operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., what happens if ID/slug is invalid), or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 ('retrieves a single page') and adds necessary detail ('from Ghost CMS by ID or slug'). There is zero waste—every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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 a single page from a CMS), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned, how errors are handled, or any dependencies (e.g., authentication). For a read operation in a system like Ghost CMS, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 that no inputs are required. The description adds value by explaining that retrieval is 'by ID or slug', which clarifies how the tool identifies the page despite no explicit parameters. This compensates for the lack of parameters in the schema, providing essential context.

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 the resource 'a single page from Ghost CMS', specifying it can be done 'by ID or slug'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ghost_get_pages (plural) by indicating it retrieves a single page, but doesn't explicitly contrast with ghost_search_pages. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 like ghost_get_pages (for multiple pages) or ghost_search_pages (for filtered searches). It mentions retrieval by ID or slug, but doesn't clarify prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases. No explicit when/when-not statements are present.

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