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 mentions the API ('Storyblok Management API') but doesn't describe key traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), rate limits, or what the output looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to handle the tool effectively.

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 that efficiently conveys the core action and resource without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key information ('Retrieve a single space role by ID') and adds only essential context ('via the Storyblok Management API'), making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 of a retrieval tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter meaning, output format, and usage context, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional assumptions or errors.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't add any semantic details about the 'space_role_id' parameter. It doesn't explain what a space role ID is, where to find it, or its expected format (e.g., integer range, uniqueness), leaving the parameter meaning unclear beyond the schema's basic type.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('a single space role by ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_space_roles' or 'retrieve_single_activity', which might have similar retrieval patterns but for different resources.

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. For example, it doesn't mention if this is for looking up a specific space role ID versus listing multiple roles with 'fetch_space_roles', or clarify prerequisites like authentication or permissions needed to access space roles.

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