Publish a draft Ghost CMS post by ID. Optionally schedule publication and send email to subscribers.
Publish a draft post
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Post ID to publish (required) | |
| send_email | No | Send email to subscribers (default: true) | |
| published_at | No | Publication date (optional, defaults to now) | |
| email_segment | No | Email segment filter (e.g., "status:free") |
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 omits that publishing is a state-changing, likely irreversible action, that it may email subscribers by default, and what preconditions apply. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.
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, but it is arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise given the tool's side effects.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters controlling an irreversible publish plus email dispatch, the description is too thin to let an agent invoke it confidently. Key behavioral context about side effects and preconditions is missing.
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 the schema already documents all four parameters including the send_email default and published_at behavior. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the baseline expectation 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?
States a specific verb (publish) and resource (draft post), and the inverse sibling ghost_posts_unpublish makes the scope reasonably clear. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like ghost_posts_update, but the action is unambiguous.
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 guidance on when to use this versus ghost_posts_update or ghost_posts_unpublish, no prerequisites (e.g., post must be a draft), and no mention of the subscriber-email side effect that would affect a caller's decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.