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 fetches details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, error handling, rate limits, or what 'details' include. The mention of 'API response' is vague, lacking specifics on format or potential side effects.

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 well-structured and concise, with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, followed by clear sections for parameters and returns. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. Without annotations or output schema, more context on return values or operational constraints would improve completeness.

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 description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explicitly defines the single parameter 'folder_id' as 'ID of the asset folder to retrieve,' providing clear semantics. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, making the parameter's purpose understandable.

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 tool's purpose: 'Fetch details of a specific asset folder by its ID.' This specifies the verb ('fetch details'), resource ('asset folder'), and key identifier ('by its ID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_asset_folders' (plural) or 'get_asset' (single asset vs folder), which would require a 5.

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 sibling tools like 'retrieve_asset_folders' for listing folders or 'get_asset' for fetching individual assets, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without explicit direction.

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