Retrieve a single Ghost page by ID or slug to access its full HTML body for display, editing, or processing.
Read a single page by id or slug, including its full HTML body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Ghost id (24-char hex) | |
| slug | No | Slug, used when id is not given |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the response includes the 'full HTML body' (a payload-size-relevant fact), but says nothing about authentication, error behavior for unknown ids/slugs, or rate limits.
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 sentence that names the verb, the resource, both lookup keys, and the notable return content. Zero filler and fully front-loaded.
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?
No output schema, but the description explicitly notes the full HTML body is returned, covering the main return-value question. An agent could call this correctly; only error/edge-case behavior is left unstated.
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 params (id, slug) are documented there, including the 'used when id is not given' precedence rule. The description only echoes 'by id or slug', adding no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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+resource ('Read a single page') and pins the scope to one record, which implicitly separates it from pages_browse. It does not name a sibling tool explicitly, so differentiation from pages_browse/posts_read is inferred rather than stated.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'by id or slug' signals the two lookup paths but there is no statement of when to prefer this over pages_browse or what happens on a missing page. Adequate but thin.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.