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 of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Creates a new task', implying a write/mutation operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the task is immediately active, error handling, or what the response contains. The mention of 'Management API' hints at administrative access but is not explicit.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information (verb, resource, context).

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 complexity (6 parameters, 1 required, no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'task' entails in Storyblok, what the parameters do, what the tool returns, or any behavioral aspects. For a mutation tool with multiple parameters, this level of detail is inadequate.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not mention any parameters, their meanings, or how they relate to creating a task (e.g., what 'lambda_code' or 'user_dialog' are for). This leaves all parameters undocumented, failing to compensate for the lack of schema 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 the resource ('a new task in a specified Storyblok space'), and mentions the API used ('Management API'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_story' or 'create_workflow' by specifying 'task', but does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'create_webhook' or 'create_workflow_stage' that might also create entities in Storyblok.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a space ID or authentication), nor does it compare to sibling tools like 'create_webhook' or 'update_task'. The context is implied by mentioning 'Storyblok space' and 'Management API', but no explicit usage instructions are given.

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