Ghost MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the action ('Updates') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 and lists key updatable fields. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or waste.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial details like required inputs (e.g., page identifier), error conditions, response format, and behavioral constraints. The field list is helpful but insufficient for safe invocation.

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 compensates by listing the updatable fields (title, content, status, images, SEO fields), providing meaningful context about what can be updated. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds value beyond the empty schema.

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 ('Updates') and resource ('an existing page in Ghost CMS'), and specifies the updatable fields (title, content, status, images, SEO). It distinguishes from siblings like ghost_create_page (create vs. update) and ghost_delete_page (update vs. delete), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools (e.g., ghost_update_post).

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 for updating existing pages, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like ghost_create_page (for new pages) or ghost_update_post (for posts instead of pages). No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., page ID needed) or exclusions is provided.

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