Retrieve a single Ghost CMS post by ID or slug, optionally selecting fields and including related data like tags or authors.
Get a single post by ID or slug
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Post ID (UUID) | |
| slug | No | Post slug (URL-safe version of title) | |
| fields | No | Limit fields returned | |
| formats | No | Include content formats (e.g., "html,mobiledoc") | |
| include | No | Include related data (e.g., "tags,authors") |
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. It does not disclose that this is a read-only lookup, what happens if both id and slug are omitted (0 required params), or whether a missing post errors or returns null.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves required behavioral detail unstated rather than being a model of concision.
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 simple read tool with fully documented parameters this is close to adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum say what is returned or how missing posts are handled.
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%, so all five parameters (id, slug, fields, formats, include) are already documented in the schema with examples. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so 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 and resource ('Get a single post') and narrows the lookup key to ID or slug, which distinguishes it from ghost_posts_list and ghost_posts_search. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this instead of ghost_posts_list or ghost_posts_search, nor any note about behavior when neither id nor slug resolves. Usage is only implied by the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.