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 the tool retrieves data, implying read-only behavior, but does not disclose critical traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'all extensions' entails (e.g., format, completeness). For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another explaining the parameter. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids redundancy. However, the formatting with extra whitespace slightly detracts from structure, but overall it is efficient and clear.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks details on behavioral aspects like return format, errors, or system limits. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what 'retrieves' entails would improve completeness for agent 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?

The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the 'context' parameter with specific options ('org' or 'partner'), clarifying its purpose and valid values. Since there is only one parameter and the schema lacks descriptions, the description effectively compensates, though it could detail default behaviors or constraints.

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 ('Retrieves all extensions') and resource ('extensions (plugins)'), with specificity about scope ('from the specified context'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'retrieve_extension' (singular) but not from 'retrieve_field_plugins' which might overlap in function. Purpose is clear but sibling differentiation could be more explicit.

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 implies usage by specifying the context parameter options ('org' or 'partner'), suggesting when to use based on context level. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'retrieve_extension' or 'retrieve_field_plugins', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied but not fully guided.

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