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 the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it triggers notifications, what happens to existing approvals, or what the response looks like. 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?

Extremely concise with zero waste - one clear sentence stating the purpose followed by parameter documentation. Every element serves a purpose and is front-loaded appropriately.

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?

For a creation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'release approval' entails, what permissions are needed, what the result looks like, or how this interacts with other approval tools. The parameter explanations help but don't compensate for missing behavioral context.

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%, but the description provides param documentation that explains what each parameter represents (story ID, approver ID, release ID). It clarifies that release_id is optional, which matches the schema's required/optional structure. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema types.

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 release approval') and specifies the target resources ('for a given story and release'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_approval' by specifying it's for releases, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other approval-related tools beyond the name.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_approval' or 'retrieve_multiple_approvals'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate versus other approval mechanisms.

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