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. It states 'Gets' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), rate limits, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. This efficiency is appropriate for a simple retrieval tool.

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 lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'asset' is, how to handle errors, or what the return value looks like. For a tool in a complex system with many siblings, this minimal description fails to provide sufficient context for reliable 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 description mentions 'by ID', which aligns with the single 'id' parameter in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no details about the ID format or constraints. The description adds minimal value by confirming the parameter's purpose but doesn't compensate for the lack of schema documentation, such as specifying if it's a numeric or string ID.

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 'Gets a specific asset by ID' clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('asset'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what an 'asset' entails in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_assets' or 'retrieve_multiple_assets', which could be confusing for an AI agent.

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. With sibling tools like 'fetch_assets' (likely for listing) and 'retrieve_multiple_assets' (likely for batch retrieval), the AI agent receives no explicit or implied context for choosing this single-asset retrieval tool over others.

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