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 but only states it 'creates' without detailing behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. It mentions the context parameter but doesn't explain its significance or constraints.

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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words, efficiently conveying the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool definition, though it could benefit from additional context.

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 (19 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data, failing to explain parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or expected outcomes, making it incomplete for effective tool 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%, and the description only mentions the 'context' parameter vaguely. With 19 parameters (3 required), it fails to explain key parameters like 'name', 'slug', or optional fields such as 'description' or 'embedded_app_url', leaving most semantics undocumented.

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 ('a new extension'), specifying the context ('organization or partner'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'retrieve_extension' or 'update_extension' by indicating creation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_space' or 'create_story'.

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 minimal guidance by mentioning the context parameter, but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'update_extension' or other creation tools in the sibling list). There's no mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases.

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