Storyblok MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a creation operation via the Management API, implying it's a write action, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. 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 zero waste. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (7 parameters, nested object, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral context, and output expectations. For a creation tool in a content management system, more information is needed to guide effective use, such as error handling or success responses.

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 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters beyond what the schema provides (only titles like 'Color', 'Component Id'). It doesn't explain what 'preset' object should contain, the format of 'image' or 'icon', or the purpose of 'component_id'. This fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 preset in a Storyblok space'), and specifies the API used ('via the Management API'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_preset' or 'delete_preset' by indicating creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar creation tools like 'create_component' or 'create_story', which slightly reduces specificity.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a space or component), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'retrieve_multiple_presets' for reading. Usage is implied by the verb 'creates', but explicit context is missing.

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