Ghost MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching by 'name or email' but doesn't specify whether this is case-sensitive, partial/fuzzy matching, what happens with no results, or any rate limits/authentication requirements. For a search 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 gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool and front-loads the essential information about what the tool does.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It explains the basic purpose but doesn't provide enough context about search behavior, result format, or differentiation from sibling tools. For a search operation, more guidance would be helpful despite the simple structure.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description adds value by specifying what the search targets ('by name or email'), which provides semantic context beyond the empty schema. This earns a baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools with added semantic clarification.

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 action ('Searches for') and target resource ('members by name or email in Ghost CMS'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ghost_get_members' or 'ghost_get_member', which might also retrieve member information.

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_members' or 'ghost_get_member'. There's no mention of search-specific use cases, filtering capabilities, or any context that would help an agent choose between these sibling tools.

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