Storyblok MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does at a high level without mentioning permissions required, pagination behavior, rate limits, error conditions, or what constitutes a 'datasource' in Storyblok context. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 extremely concise - a single sentence that gets straight to the point without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no space on redundant information. This is an example of efficient communication, though it achieves this at the expense of completeness.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It provides only basic purpose information without addressing parameter usage, behavioral characteristics, or output format. For a tool that likely returns structured data about datasources, more context is needed about what information is returned and how to interpret it.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter ('by_ids' or 'search') has any documentation in the schema. The description provides no information about these parameters - it doesn't explain what format 'by_ids' should take, what the 'search' parameter filters on, or how they interact. With 2 undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema's deficiencies.

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 datasources from a specified Storyblok space'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_single_datasource' or 'retrieve_multiple_datasource_entries', which would require more specificity about scope or relationship to other datasource operations.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'retrieve_single_datasource' and 'retrieve_multiple_datasource_entries' available, the description offers no context about selection criteria, prerequisites, or typical use cases for retrieving multiple datasources versus other retrieval operations.

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