Storyblok MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions debugging via fetch parameters but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format is, or any rate limits. For a debugging 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 that front-loads the core purpose. There's no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately concise. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from parameters or usage 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 of a debugging tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what debugging entails, what results to expect, or how it differs from similar tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 vaguely references 'various fetch parameters' but only 'story_id' is documented in the schema. The description doesn't explain what 'story_id' represents, its format, or any additional parameters implied by 'various fetch parameters'. This fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 states the tool is for debugging access to a story, which provides a vague purpose. It mentions 'various fetch parameters' but doesn't specify what debugging entails or what resources are involved. While it distinguishes from siblings like 'get_story' by focusing on debugging rather than retrieval, the purpose remains somewhat ambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_story' or 'fetch_stories'. The description implies usage for debugging access issues but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear direction on appropriate contexts.

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