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 'pagination, filtering, and sorting options' which gives some behavioral context, but doesn't disclose important details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (especially critical with no output schema). The description is insufficient 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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality and key features. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. While it mentions pagination/filtering/sorting, it doesn't explain how these work, what the response format is, or any behavioral constraints. Given the complexity implied by these features and the lack of structured documentation, more context is needed.

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% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by mentioning 'pagination, filtering, and sorting options' which provides semantic context about what the tool accepts, even though no parameters are formally defined in the 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 verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('list of pages from Ghost CMS'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling 'ghost_get_page' (singular) by specifying 'list of pages', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'ghost_search_pages' which also retrieves pages with 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 'pagination, filtering, and sorting options' which implies usage for retrieving multiple pages with those features, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ghost_search_pages' or 'ghost_get_page'. No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned.

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