Upload an image to Ghost from a remote URL or local file path and get back the Ghost-hosted URL for use as a feature image or in post HTML.
Upload an image to Ghost from a remote URL or a local file path. Returns the Ghost-hosted URL to use as feature_image or in post HTML.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Remote image URL to fetch and upload | |
| file_path | No | Local file path (when running locally) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses that the result is a Ghost-hosted URL, which is the key behavioral fact. It says nothing about auth requirements, size/format limits, what happens if the remote fetch fails, or that the upload creates a persistent asset on the Ghost instance.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return value. No filler or repetition of schema fields beyond what is needed for orientation.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return value (Ghost-hosted URL) and its intended use. It falls short only on the fact that neither parameter is required but at least one must be supplied, and on failure behavior for unreachable URLs.
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 100% and both parameters (url, file_path) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the two sources but adds no syntax, mutual-exclusivity, or precedence information beyond the 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Upload an image to Ghost') plus the two accepted sources, so the agent immediately understands the operation. No sibling tool in the list touches images, so there is no ambiguity to resolve.
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 mention that the returned URL is 'to use as feature_image or in post HTML' implies the workflow context (upload before creating/updating a post), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives are stated. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.