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 pagination ('paginated list'), which is useful, but fails to cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits like safety or permissions, and output format. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively 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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters 'page' and 'per_page' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain their purpose, default values, valid ranges, or how they affect pagination. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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'), resource ('collaborators (users)'), and context ('in a specified Storyblok space'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_space_roles' or 'retrieve_single_activity', but the specificity is adequate for basic understanding.

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 like 'fetch_space_roles' or 'retrieve_multiple_activities', nor does it mention prerequisites or context. It simply states what it does without indicating appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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