Storyblok MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'using AI' but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only or destructive operation (e.g., does it modify the story?), authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, stating the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes. For a translation tool that likely modifies content, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implies parameters like 'story' and 'language' but doesn't explain the 6 parameters (e.g., 'code', 'overwrite', 'release_id', 'space_id', 'story_id', 'lang') or their relationships. This leaves critical input semantics undocumented.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Translates a story's content into a specified language using AI.' It specifies the verb ('translates'), resource ('story's content'), and method ('using AI'). However, it doesn't distinguish from potential sibling tools like 'bulk_update_stories' or 'update_story' that might also handle translations, so it's not a perfect 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a story ID), exclusions, or how it differs from other translation-related operations in the sibling list. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate contexts.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.