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 states 'Fetch' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'space' entails (e.g., metadata, permissions). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 just one sentence, front-loaded with the core action and parameter. There's no wasted text, making it easy to parse quickly, though this conciseness contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 read operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'space' is, what data is returned, or how it differs from siblings. For a tool in a rich ecosystem with many alternatives, more context is needed to guide 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%, but the description adds minimal value by mentioning 'by ID' for the single parameter 'space_id'. However, it doesn't explain the ID format, constraints, or examples. With low coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully, aligning with the baseline expectation when schema does little work.

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 verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a specific space by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'fetch_spaces' or 'retrieve_single_activity', which would require explicit differentiation to achieve a score of 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. With many sibling tools like 'fetch_spaces' (likely for listing spaces) and 'retrieve_single_activity' (for other single-item retrievals), the agent lacks context on selection criteria, such as whether this is for detailed space metadata versus a summary list.

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