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. It states 'Updates an existing tier,' implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core action ('Updates an existing tier'), then adds details ('Can update pricing, benefits, and other tier properties'). Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, 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 and no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and what properties can be updated, but lacks details on behavioral aspects, prerequisites, or return values. For a mutation tool, this leaves gaps in completeness, though the empty schema reduces the burden.

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 specifying what can be updated ('pricing, benefits, and other tier properties'), which provides semantic context beyond the empty schema. This compensates well for the lack of parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Updates an existing tier (membership level) in Ghost CMS.' It specifies the verb ('Updates'), resource ('tier'), and scope ('Ghost CMS'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghost_create_tier and ghost_delete_tier. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools (e.g., ghost_update_member), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 an existing tier ID), exclusions, or comparisons with other update tools like ghost_update_member. The only implied usage is for updating tiers, but no explicit context is given.

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