Delete multiple Ghost CMS posts in bulk by applying a filter and setting confirmation to true.
Bulk delete multiple posts (use with caution)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | Filter to select posts to delete (required) | |
| confirm | No | Confirmation required (must be true) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not state whether deletion is permanent or recoverable, what happens to unmatched filters, or any auth/rate-limit constraints. '(use with caution)' gestures at destructiveness but conveys no concrete behavioral trait.
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 short sentence that front-loads the action and resource with no filler. The parenthetical earns marginal value, so it is efficient though not maximally informative.
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?
This is a destructive bulk mutation with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description omits irreversibility, filter semantics, partial-failure behavior, and return information. For a high-blast-radius tool, the definition is materially under-specified.
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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents that filter selects posts and confirm must be true. The description adds no syntax, format, or filter-expression detail beyond that, which is the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb+resource (bulk delete posts) and the word 'bulk' implicitly distinguishes it from the single-item sibling ghost_posts_delete. However, it never names the single-delete alternative, so the differentiation is left to inference rather than explicit.
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 only guidance is the parenthetical '(use with caution)', which is a warning rather than a when-to-use rule. It does not say when to prefer bulk_delete over ghost_posts_delete for a single post, nor what prerequisites (permissions, filter scope) apply.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.