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 for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'creates' (implying a write/mutation operation) but doesn't mention required permissions, rate limits, whether the schedule is reversible, what happens on success/failure, or if it triggers notifications. The ISO-8601 format hint is useful but insufficient 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 sized with a clear opening sentence followed by bullet points for parameters. Every element earns its place: the API context is relevant, and parameter explanations are necessary given the 0% schema coverage. Could be slightly more front-loaded with key behavioral information.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate parameter semantics but lacks critical behavioral context. It doesn't explain what a 'story schedule' actually does (e.g., auto-publishes at specified time), success/failure responses, or error conditions. The parameter explanations partially compensate for schema gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantic explanations for all 3 parameters: story_id as 'Numeric ID of the story to be scheduled', publish_at with format example, and language as optional with code examples. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover validation rules or error cases.

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 ('new story schedule') with specific context ('via the Storyblok Management API'). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'create_story' or 'update_story_schedule' by focusing on scheduling. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'bulk_create_stories' or 'publish_story' which might have overlapping scheduling functionality.

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., story must exist), when scheduling is appropriate versus immediate publishing, or how it relates to siblings like 'publish_story', 'bulk_publish_stories', or 'update_story_schedule'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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