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' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, default sorting, pagination defaults, or what happens when no parameters are provided (since input schema has no properties). This leaves significant gaps for a read operation.

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 list of posts') and adds key features ('with pagination, filtering, and sorting options'). There's no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how pagination/filtering/sorting work (e.g., via query parameters, headers, or implicit behavior), what the return format is, or any error conditions. For a tool with implied complexity, this leaves too much unspecified.

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 there's no parameter documentation burden. The description adds value by implying that pagination, filtering, and sorting are available as options, even though not explicitly parameterized in the schema. This provides useful 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 verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('list of posts from Ghost CMS'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like ghost_get_post (singular) by specifying 'list of posts' and mentions pagination/filtering/sorting. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from ghost_search_posts, which might offer similar filtering capabilities.

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_post (for a single post) or ghost_search_posts (which might have overlapping functionality). It mentions 'filtering' but doesn't clarify if this is the primary tool for filtered post retrieval or how it compares to search tools.

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