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 data (implying read-only) but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, error handling, or what 'multiple presets' entails (e.g., all presets vs. a subset). For a retrieval 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 extremely concise with just two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and parameter usage. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. No wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., format of presets, error responses), authentication needs, or behavioral constraints. For a tool interacting with an API, this leaves too many unknowns for effective agent use.

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 the single parameter by explaining that component_id is used for optional filtering. Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only provides a title 'Component Id'), the description compensates well by clarifying the parameter's purpose, though it doesn't specify format details like what integer values are valid.

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 multiple presets') and resource ('from a Storyblok space using the Management API'), which is specific and informative. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_single_preset' or 'fetch_components', 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 mentions optional filtering by component_id, which implies when to use this parameter, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'retrieve_single_preset' or other retrieval tools in the sibling list. Usage context is implied rather than clearly stated.

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