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 retrieves data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.

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 action. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity comes at the cost of detail 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 of retrieving dependencies with two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter details, behavioral traits, or return values, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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 'one or more stories', which loosely relates to the 'story_ids' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'release_id' parameter or its purpose. With 0% schema description coverage and two parameters, the description fails to add meaningful semantics beyond what's implied, leaving key inputs undocumented.

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The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('unpublished dependencies for one or more stories'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_stories' or 'get_story', which might also retrieve story-related data, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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, such as needing specific permissions or story states, or compare it to similar tools like 'fetch_stories' or 'get_story_versions', leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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