Storyblok MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('publishes') but fails to describe critical traits: whether this is a destructive or safe operation, permission requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'publish' means in this context (e.g., making stories live, scheduling). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity, though this conciseness comes at the cost of 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 tool's complexity (a bulk mutation operation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to provide necessary context about behavior, parameters, or outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.

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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'by ID' which hints at the 'story_ids' parameter, but doesn't explain the format, constraints, or valid values (e.g., are IDs strings, UUIDs?). With one parameter and no schema descriptions, this minimal addition is insufficient.

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 'Publishes multiple stories by ID' clearly states the action (publishes) and resource (stories), but it's vague about what 'publish' entails and doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'publish_story'. It distinguishes by scale (multiple vs. single) but lacks specificity about the operation's nature.

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 like 'publish_story' or 'bulk_update_stories'. The description implies bulk operation but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without contextual direction.

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