Storyblok MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a destructive operation (overwrites current story), requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affects linked assets), or what happens on success/failure. 'Restores' implies mutation, but details are missing.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, outcomes, and integration with sibling tools (e.g., 'get_story_versions'), leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, so the schema provides no param details. The description mentions 'story' and 'specific version', which hints at the 'id' and 'version_id' parameters, but doesn't explain their format, source, or constraints. It adds minimal meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 ('Restores') and the resource ('a story'), specifying it's to a 'specific version'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'bulk_restore_assets' by focusing on individual stories, but doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'restore_component_version'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing story versions from 'get_story_versions'), exclusions, or how it differs from other restoration tools like 'bulk_restore_assets' or 'restore_component_version'.

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