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, error handling, 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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action ('Retrieves') and resource, making it easy to scan and 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., tier details), error conditions, or any behavioral context needed for reliable use. For a retrieval tool, this leaves critical gaps in understanding how to interpret results.

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 clarifying that retrieval is 'by ID', which provides context beyond the empty schema, though it doesn't specify how the ID is provided (e.g., in the URL or elsewhere).

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 tier from Ghost CMS'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'ghost_get_tiers', which retrieves multiple tiers, though this distinction is implied by 'single' vs. the 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 like 'ghost_get_tiers' for multiple tiers or other get operations. It mentions 'by ID' but doesn't specify prerequisites or contextual usage, leaving the agent to infer based on naming conventions alone.

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