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 states this is an update operation, implying mutation, 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 leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 ('Updates an existing post in Ghost CMS') and then specifies the updatable fields. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and fields but lacks critical context like behavioral details, usage guidelines, or output expectations. For a mutation tool, this leaves the agent with incomplete information to operate effectively.

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 need documentation. The description adds value by listing updatable fields (title, content, status, tags, images, SEO fields), which provides semantic context beyond the empty schema. This helps the agent understand what can be modified, compensating for the lack of parameter definitions.

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 post in Ghost CMS'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ghost_create_post by specifying it updates existing posts rather than creating new ones. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like ghost_update_page or ghost_update_member.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a post ID), compare to other update tools (like ghost_update_page), or indicate when not to use it (e.g., for creating new posts vs. updating). The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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