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. 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, sorting, what 'accessible' means (e.g., based on permissions), or the response format. For a list operation 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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Retrieve all accessible spaces') and avoids unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (a list operation with no output schema and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., list format, fields included), pagination, error handling, or what 'accessible' entails. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more 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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter documentation. It appropriately doesn't mention parameters, aligning with the schema. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as there's nothing to add beyond the 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 'Retrieve all accessible spaces' clearly states the verb ('retrieve') and resource ('spaces'), with 'all accessible' providing scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_space' (singular) and 'duplicate_space' (copy operation). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list/retrieve tools like 'fetch_stories' or 'fetch_assets' beyond the resource name.

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., authentication), when not to use it (e.g., for single space details), or direct alternatives like 'get_space' for specific spaces. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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