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 states the tool duplicates a workflow but doesn't explain what duplication entails (e.g., whether it copies all settings, stages, or content types), what permissions are required, whether it's a safe operation, or what the output looks like. For a mutation 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, well-structured sentence with zero waste. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and context without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and API 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 tool has 3 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral details, or expected outcomes. For a mutation tool with significant complexity, the description should provide more context about how duplication works and what results to expect.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions duplicating a workflow but doesn't explain any of the three required parameters (workflow_id, name, content_types). It doesn't clarify what 'content_types' represents in this context or how the duplication process uses these inputs, leaving parameters semantically undefined.

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 ('duplicates') and resource ('an existing workflow in a Storyblok space'), and specifies the API context ('via the Management API'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_workflow' by focusing on duplication rather than creation from scratch. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'duplicate_space' or other duplication tools in the sibling list.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_workflow' or other duplication tools. The description mentions the Management API context but doesn't specify prerequisites, permissions needed, or scenarios where duplication is preferred over creation. This leaves the agent without clear usage context.

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