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 creation but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a datasource ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

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 complexity (a creation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter details, behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output information. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 parameters (name, slug, dimensions) are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond implying a 'specified Storyblok space' (which isn't a parameter listed). It fails to explain what 'dimensions' means or how 'slug' differs from 'name', leaving parameters semantically unclear.

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') and resource ('new datasource') with context ('in a specified Storyblok space'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_datasource_entry' or 'create_space', which are related but distinct creation operations.

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. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing space), compare to 'create_datasource_entry' (which might add entries to an existing datasource), or specify use cases. The description only states what it does, not when to apply it.

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