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 the tool creates a new discussion, implying a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., whether it triggers notifications), error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted list of parameters, making it easy to scan. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the parameter explanations are brief and could be more detailed without sacrificing conciseness.

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 of a 7-parameter write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context, error information, and output details, making it adequate for basic use but insufficient for full understanding in a production setting.

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 value by listing all 7 required parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'ID of the story' for story_id) and an example for message_json. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well, providing clear semantics that the schema alone does not, though it could benefit from more detail on formats or constraints.

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 a new discussion') and target resource ('for a story via the Storyblok Management API'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_comment' or 'resolve_discussion', which might handle similar discussion-related operations, leaving room for ambiguity in sibling context.

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, such as 'create_comment' or 'retrieve_multiple_discussions', nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts. It simply lists required parameters without contextual usage instructions.

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