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 states it's a creation tool but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or the format of the response. For a mutation tool with 12 parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 high complexity (12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral expectations, or output format, leaving significant gaps for a creation tool in a system with many sibling tools.

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%, meaning none of the 12 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description only vaguely mentions 'all supported fields' without explaining what those fields are, their purposes, or relationships. It adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names.

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 'Creates a new component with all supported fields' clearly states the verb ('creates') and resource ('component'), and specifies scope ('with all supported fields'). However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_component_folder' or 'create_story', which also create different resources in the same system.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or differentiate from other creation tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'create_component_folder' for folders vs. components).

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