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 logs but doesn't mention critical aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or error handling. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary operational context 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 well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted list of optional filters. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It could be slightly improved by front-loading more critical details, but overall, it's efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity of a retrieval tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, pagination), error conditions, and output format. While it covers parameters well, the overall context is insufficient for an AI agent to use the tool confidently without additional assumptions.

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 significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the purpose of each optional filter (e.g., 'created_at_gte / created_at_lte: YYYY-MM-DD date strings') and provides examples for 'types'. This clarifies parameter usage effectively, compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't cover all potential nuances like format constraints beyond dates.

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: 'Retrieves activity logs for a specified Storyblok space.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('activity logs'), and context ('Storyblok space'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_single_activity' or other retrieval tools, 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. It lists optional filters but doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether a space ID is required (implied but not stated), or compare it to siblings like 'retrieve_single_activity' for single logs. This lack of contextual usage advice limits its effectiveness 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.