Storyblok MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'move' implies mutation but doesn't clarify if this is destructive (e.g., overwrites), requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., partial moves). The description lacks essential behavioral traits needed for safe invocation.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it's too brief to be fully helpful, bordering on under-specified rather than optimally structured. It earns a high score for efficiency but loses points for lacking necessary detail.

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 of a bulk mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral risks, parameter details, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'multiple assets' and 'specified folder', hinting at 'ids' and 'asset_folder_id', but doesn't explain parameter meanings (e.g., what IDs refer to, folder constraints) or formats. It adds minimal value beyond the parameter names, insufficient for the coverage gap.

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 states the action ('move') and resource ('multiple assets to a specified folder'), which is clear but basic. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'bulk_restore_assets' or 'delete_multiple_assets', leaving the specific use case ambiguous. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what distinguishes this bulk operation from individual moves or other bulk operations.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., permissions), when not to use it (e.g., for single assets), or compare it to siblings like 'bulk_restore_assets' or 'update_asset'. The description is too minimal to offer any contextual usage advice.

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