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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'search by query string' and 'optional status filtering' but doesn't disclose critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, error handling, or what constitutes a valid query string. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 ('Search for pages in Ghost CMS') and adds necessary qualifiers ('by query string with optional status filtering'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list of pages, metadata), how results are ordered, what fields are included, or any limitations (e.g., max results). The mention of query string and status filtering is helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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 the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description adds value by implying that search functionality is handled differently (likely through query parameters or internal mechanisms not reflected in the schema), though it doesn't specify how the query string or status filtering are actually passed. Given 0 parameters, baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 ('Search for pages') and resource ('in Ghost CMS'), with additional context about query string and optional status filtering. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'ghost_get_pages' by specifying search functionality, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'ghost_search_posts' or 'ghost_search_members'.

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_pages' (which likely retrieves all pages without search) or other search tools for different resources. It mentions optional status filtering but doesn't explain when this filtering is appropriate or necessary.

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