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. While 'Lists' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this requires authentication, how results are formatted (e.g., pagination, sorting), if it's always available, or performance characteristics. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral unknowns.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Lists' (action), 'all available tools' (scope), 'with their names, descriptions, and total count' (output details). There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool returns at a high level but doesn't provide format details, authentication requirements, or guidance on when to use it versus specific resource queries. For a meta-tool in a large sibling set, more contextual guidance would be helpful.

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 zero parameters (schema description coverage is 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't mention any parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('all available tools'), and specifies what information is returned ('names, descriptions, and total count'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from other list/retrieve siblings like 'fetch_spaces' or 'retrieve_multiple_activities' beyond the obvious resource difference.

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 that retrieve or list resources (e.g., 'fetch_spaces', 'retrieve_multiple_activities'), there's no indication of whether this is a general discovery tool, a meta-tool for exploring capabilities, or when an agent should prefer specific resource queries over this general listing.

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