Update multiple Ghost CMS posts at once by applying a filter and setting tags, status, featured, or visibility.
Bulk update multiple posts
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Data to update on matching posts (required) | |
| filter | No | Filter to select posts (required, e.g., "status:draft") |
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 behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It omits critical traits: whether updates merge or replace fields (e.g., does 'tags' append or overwrite?), what happens to non-matching posts, partial-failure behavior, and permission requirements.
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 four-word phrase is maximally concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficient; nothing beyond the title is communicated. Brevity here comes at the cost of usefulness.
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?
For a bulk mutation with a nested object parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should cover merge semantics, failure behavior, and result reporting. None of that is present, leaving significant gaps an agent needs to call it safely.
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%, with both 'data' and 'filter' documented including a filter syntax example ('status:draft'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it never mentions the filter-based selection model or which fields 'data' accepts.
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 with the 'bulk' scope qualifier, which distinguishes it from the single-record sibling ghost_posts_update. It does not, however, say which fields can be updated or how posts are selected, so the differentiation is scope-only.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as ghost_posts_update (single) or ghost_posts_bulk_delete. The agent must infer that 'bulk' means many posts matched by the filter, which the description never states.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.