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 of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation, which implies it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't specify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned list. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 tiers') and adds useful context ('with optional filtering by type'). There is no wasted wording, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate by stating the basic retrieval action and optional filtering. However, it lacks details on return values, error cases, or integration context, which would be helpful for a tool interacting with a CMS like Ghost. It meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds value by mentioning 'optional filtering by type (free/paid)', which hints at potential filtering behavior, though it doesn't detail how this filtering is implemented or if it's a parameter. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and this extra context slightly enhances understanding.

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 tiers (membership levels) from Ghost CMS'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'ghost_get_tier' (singular), which might retrieve a single tier, leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'optional filtering by type (free/paid)', suggesting it's for listing tiers with possible type-based filtering. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ghost_get_tier' or other get_* tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, relying on implied context.

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