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 mentions the tool retrieves data and returns an API response, but fails to detail critical aspects like whether it's read-only, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on errors beyond 'error message'. This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with access tokens.

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 brief and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first and a return value note added. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the action and output, though the return note could be more specific (e.g., format of the list). There's minimal waste, but slight room for improvement in structure.

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 has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and return type adequately. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., authentication needs, error handling) and doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations, making it minimally viable but incomplete for secure token management.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately omits parameter details, focusing on the tool's purpose and return value, which aligns with the schema's completeness. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist and the description doesn't add unnecessary information.

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 ('Retrieve all access tokens') and resource ('for the current Storyblok space using the Management API'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_single_activity' or 'retrieve_multiple_webhooks' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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 'create_access_token' or 'delete_access_token', or any prerequisites like authentication requirements. It lacks explicit when/when-not statements or comparisons to other tools, offering only basic context.

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