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 comments,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice, making it less transparent for safe and effective use.

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 and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence and a bullet point for the parameter. There is no wasted text, and every element adds value, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving comments for a discussion), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or return format, and it lacks usage guidelines. This makes it inadequate for an AI agent to use the tool confidently in varied contexts.

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 description adds meaning by explaining that 'discussion_uuid' is the 'UUID of the discussion in the idea.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic type. However, it doesn't provide additional details like format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for minimal compensation without fully enriching the parameter understanding.

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 verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('comments for a specific idea discussion in a Storyblok space'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'retrieve_multiple_comments' or 'retrieve_specific_discussion', which could handle similar comment or discussion retrieval, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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, such as 'retrieve_multiple_comments' for broader comment retrieval or 'retrieve_specific_discussion' for discussion details. It lacks context on prerequisites, like needing a valid discussion UUID, or exclusions, such as not supporting filtering or pagination, which limits its utility for an AI agent.

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