Search Ghost CMS posts by title with optional status filter to find specific content.
Search for posts in Ghost CMS by query string with optional status filtering.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query to find in post titles. | |
| status | No | Filter by post status. Default searches all statuses. | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of results (1-50). Default is 15. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.14.3v1.14.2v1.12.2Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Maximum number of results (1-50). Default is 15.",
+ "maximum": 50,
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / queryAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Search query to find in post titles.",
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / statusAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Filter by post status. Default searches all statuses.",
+ "enum": [
+ "published",
+ "draft",
+ "scheduled",
+ "all"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "query"
+]v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only mentions searching and filtering. It does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination (limit parameter with default), sorting, return format, or performance implications. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand full 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, clear sentence with no extraneous words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include key details like pagination or default status, which would improve utility without losing conciseness.
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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how results are ordered, or how query matches titles. For a search tool with three parameters, more context is needed for an agent to use it correctly.
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 coverage is 100% and all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal value by restating 'by query string' and 'optional status filtering', but does not explain the limit parameter or nuances of the query field (e.g., title-only search). Baseline 3 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 verb ('Search'), resource ('posts'), and method ('by query string') with optional status filtering. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like ghost_get_posts or ghost_search_members by specifying the search functionality and filtering.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ghost_get_posts, ghost_search_pages). There is no mention of when not to use it or any prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.