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 API source ('Management API') but lacks critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the return format looks like, or if there are pagination/rate limits. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 efficiently structured with a clear opening sentence followed by bullet points for parameters. Every sentence earns its place, and there's no redundant or verbose language.

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 (2 optional parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but misses behavioral aspects like return format, error handling, or usage context. It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 context for both parameters: 'by_ids' is explained as 'Optional comma-separated list of branch IDs to filter' and 'search' as 'Optional filter term for branch names'. This compensates well for the 0% schema description coverage, though it doesn't cover parameter formats or examples exhaustively.

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') and resource ('multiple branches (pipelines) in a Storyblok space via the Management API'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_single_branch' or 'fetch_stories', which would be needed for 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 doesn't mention scenarios where this tool is preferred over other retrieval tools in the sibling list, nor does it specify prerequisites or constraints for usage.

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