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 'Supports all documented fields including publishing' which suggests some capabilities, but doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether creation is reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise with just two sentences that get straight to the point. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds important capability information. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complex mutation tool with 16 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Storyblok story' is in this context, doesn't describe the return value, and provides minimal guidance on the numerous parameters. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 16 parameters (3 required), the description provides almost no parameter guidance. It mentions 'all documented fields including publishing' which vaguely references the 'publish' parameter but doesn't explain any of the 15 other parameters or their relationships. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema 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 Storyblok story'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'bulk_create_stories' or 'create_story_schedule', which would require more specific scope information.

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 'bulk_create_stories' or 'create_story_schedule'. It mentions 'Supports all documented fields including publishing' which hints at capability but doesn't establish usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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