Skip to main content
Glama

posts_create

Create a Ghost post as a draft by default, or set status to published or scheduled, with fields for title, HTML body, tags, SEO metadata, and feature image.

Instructions

Create a post. Defaults to draft unless status is set.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
htmlNoFull body as HTML; Ghost converts it to its native format
tagsNoTag names; missing tags are created by Ghost
titleYesTitle (required)
statusNo
featuredNo
og_titleNo
meta_titleNoSEO title (max 300 chars)
published_atNoISO 8601 datetime; required when scheduling, optional to backdate
feature_imageNoURL of the feature image (use images_upload first for local/remote files)
twitter_titleNo
custom_excerptNo
og_descriptionNo
meta_descriptionNoSEO description (max 500 chars)
feature_image_altNo
codeinjection_footNo
codeinjection_headNo
twitter_descriptionNo
feature_image_captionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuine behavioral trait not present in the schema: the post defaults to draft unless status is explicitly set. It omits auth requirements, side effects (e.g., Ghost auto-creating missing tags), and whether the newly created post is returned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the default behavior is stated second. It is efficient, though borderline terse for a tool with this many knobs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An 18-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage demands more than two sentences. Missing permission requirements, tag auto-creation behavior, and return semantics leave the definition materially incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 18 parameters and only 39% schema description coverage, the schema leaves many fields (featured, og_*, twitter_*, codeinjection_*, custom_excerpt) undocumented. The description adds meaning only for status defaulting and says nothing about the other seventeen parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a post'), which cleanly separates it from posts_update, posts_read, and posts_delete. However it does not explicitly contrast with the adjacent pages_create sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only usage signal is the default-draft note; there is no guidance on when to choose posts_create over posts_update or pages_create, nor any prerequisite/permission context. An agent must infer usage entirely.

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