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 this is an update operation (implying mutation) and mentions optional publishing, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error handling for partial failures, or what the response looks like. 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 extremely concise (one sentence) with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the optional publishing feature efficiently.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and one complex parameter (array of objects), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to structure story objects, error conditions, or behavioral constraints needed for safe use.

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 the undocumented parameter. It mentions 'stories' but provides no details about what constitutes a story object, what fields can be updated, required format, or constraints. The optional publishing aspect isn't linked to any parameter in the schema, creating confusion.

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 verb ('Updates') and resource ('multiple stories in Storyblok'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'update_story' (which appears to update single stories) or 'bulk_publish_stories' (which publishes without updating), missing full sibling differentiation.

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 like 'update_story' or 'bulk_publish_stories'. It mentions optional publishing but doesn't clarify when that's appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed for bulk operations.

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