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 'completes the asset upload process,' which suggests a write operation, but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or side effects. This leaves critical gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 that front-loads the main action ('completes the asset upload process'). It avoids unnecessary words, but could be more structured by adding context or prerequisites. Overall, it's appropriately sized with zero waste.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'completes' entails, the return value, error conditions, or how it integrates with sibling tools like 'init_asset_upload.' For a tool that likely involves mutation and coordination, this leaves significant gaps for 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%, with one parameter 'asset_id' undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain what 'asset_id' is (e.g., an identifier from 'init_asset_upload') or its format. With low coverage, the description doesn't compensate, but since there's only one parameter, the baseline is adjusted to 3 for minimal viability.

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 tool 'completes the asset upload process after S3 upload,' which provides a clear verb ('completes') and resource ('asset upload process'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'completes' entails (e.g., finalizing metadata, triggering processing). It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'init_asset_upload' or 'update_asset,' leaving ambiguity in scope.

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 implies usage after an S3 upload, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'init_asset_upload' for starting the process) or prerequisites. No exclusions or specific contexts are mentioned, making it insufficient for informed tool selection.

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