list_authorsRetrieve paginated public author identities and post counts for Ghost without exposing staff emails or roles.
List bounded public author identities and post counts without exposing staff email or roles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| search | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meta | Yes | ||
| authors | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description still adds a real behavioral fact beyond them: staff email and roles are deliberately excluded from the output, and results are 'bounded'. It stops short of stating pagination/rate/auth specifics.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (identity listing, post counts, privacy exclusion) carries information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the privacy note covers output scope. However, with three undocumented parameters and no usage guidance, the definition is only minimally complete for an agent to call it confidently.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for three parameters (page, limit, search); the schema only supplies types and defaults. The word 'bounded' loosely gestures at the limit cap but does not explain pagination, the search field's matching behavior, or the maximum of 50, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List ... author identities and post counts'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_tags and list_posts. Scope qualifiers ('bounded', 'public') further sharpen what is returned, though it never names a sibling it is meant to replace.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool is mentioned. The agent must infer that this is the author-listing counterpart to list_tags/list_posts purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.