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 it 'creates' something, implying a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or the response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the tool's purpose and another detailing parameters. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary fluff, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more integrated into the flow for perfect structure.

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 write operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral details like error handling or response format, leaving room for improvement in 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 adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'story_id' is the 'Numeric ID of the content entry to be approved' and 'approver_id' is the 'Numeric ID of the user who will approve it', clarifying the purpose and format of both parameters. 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 action ('creates an approval request') and the target resource ('for a story (and optional release) in a Storyblok space'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_release_approval' or 'retrieve_multiple_approvals', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 'create_release_approval' or how it relates to other approval-related tools. It mentions an 'optional release' but doesn't clarify when that parameter applies or if there are prerequisites, leaving usage context implied at best.

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