Ghost MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Retrieves') but lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the ID/slug is invalid. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage, leaving the agent uncertain about operational 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 tag') and adds necessary context ('from Ghost CMS by ID or slug'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and input method but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines, which are more critical in the absence of annotations. It meets the baseline for a simple retrieval tool but doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured data.

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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by specifying that retrieval can be by 'ID or slug', which clarifies the implicit input method beyond the empty schema. This compensates adequately, though it doesn't detail format or constraints for ID/slug.

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 ('a single tag from Ghost CMS'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ghost_get_tags' (plural) or explain why one would use this single-tag retrieval versus the list version, which prevents a perfect score.

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_tags' for listing multiple tags or other get_* tools for different resources. It mentions retrieval by 'ID or slug' but doesn't clarify prerequisites or contexts for choosing this specific tool over siblings.

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