Skip to main content
Glama
zecloud

ghost-mcp-azure

by zecloud
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Related Servers

Alternatives to ghost-mcp-azure

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • ghost-mcp

      uppinote20
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server for managing Ghost blogs from AI coding editors. Create, edit, publish, and sync blog posts directly from tools like Claude Code or Cursor.
      20 npm
      1
      MIT

    • ghost-mcp-secure

      cuonghapvn
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A secure-by-default MCP server for Ghost CMS that enables content management, site configuration, and member operations via Claude, with all destructive actions disabled until explicitly opted in.
      7
      MIT

    • ghost-mcp

      seagyn
      A
      license
      D
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI assistants to manage Ghost CMS content through MCP, with read tools for posts, pages, tags, and members, plus draft-safe write tools that cannot publish or delete.
      36
      5,015 npm
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    D1.8/5.0

    Scored across 42 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Tools follow a resource_action pattern that clearly separates resources (posts, members, tags) and CRUD-like operations (browse, read, add, edit, delete). Boundaries are mostly clear, though browse vs read distinction is slightly ambiguous without descriptions.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Every tool consistently uses resource_action format with plural resources and a small fixed verb set (browse, read, add, edit, delete). No mixing of conventions.

    Tool Count2/5

    42 tools is heavy for a Ghost CMS surface, and many are mechanical per-resource variants. This bloats the toolset beyond what an agent can easily navigate.

    Completeness3/5

    Coverage is good across many resources, but many resources lack edit/delete (newsletters has no browse? invites lacks read/edit; users lacks add; webhooks lack browse/read). No descriptions make gaps harder to assess, but lifecycle coverage is uneven.

    Maintenance

    ActivityStale
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources