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 mentions that 'compiled_body' is 'Required; empty string if developing locally', which hints at development workflows, but lacks critical details like permissions needed, whether the creation is irreversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 and front-loaded, starting with the main purpose. The parameter explanations are concise and informative, though the formatting with 'Args:' could be slightly more integrated. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 (creation operation with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context like error handling, return values, or system constraints. It's adequate as a baseline but has clear gaps for safe and effective use.

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 significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose: 'name' as a unique identifier with an example, 'body' as JavaScript source, 'compiled_body' as required with a development note, and 'context' with allowed values. 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') and resource ('a new field plugin (field type)'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_extension' or 'create_component', which might create similar types of 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_extension' or 'update_field_plugin', nor does it mention prerequisites or typical use cases. It only states the context parameter options without explaining their implications.

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