Storyblok MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool creates a token via the Management API but doesn't specify required permissions, whether this is a write operation (implied but not stated), rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to existing tokens. The return value description ('API response containing the created access token or an error message') is minimal and doesn't explain format or structure.

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 well-structured with clear sections for the main purpose, request body parameters, and return value. Each sentence adds value, though the return value description could be more specific. The formatting with bullet-like parameter explanations is efficient and easy to parse.

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 (5 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is partially complete. It excels at parameter documentation but lacks behavioral context about permissions, side effects, and detailed return format. For a creation tool with no structured safety information, more behavioral disclosure would be needed for full completeness.

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?

The description provides comprehensive parameter documentation beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clearly explains all 5 parameters with their purposes, data types, and optionality (e.g., 'access (str): The access level for the token (e.g., 'draft', 'published')', 'story_ids (Optional[List[int]]): Optional list of story IDs to restrict access'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 specific action ('Create a new access token') and resource ('in the current Storyblok space via the Management API'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_access_token' and 'update_access_token'. It uses precise terminology that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 'retrieve_multiple_access_tokens' or 'update_access_token'. It mentions the context ('current Storyblok space') but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for creating access tokens versus other token-related operations.

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