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 it's a retrieval operation via the Management API, implying read-only behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity.

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 brief and structured with a clear main sentence and a bullet point for parameter details. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the parameter hint into the main flow for optimal efficiency.

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 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical details like response structure, error cases, authentication needs, and full parameter explanations, making it insufficient for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal semantics by explaining 'by_status' as an optional filter with specific values, but doesn't cover 'space_id' or provide deeper context like format or constraints. This partial compensation earns a baseline score.

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 story scheduling entries in a Storyblok space via the Management API'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_one_story_schedule' 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 mentions an optional status filter but doesn't explain when to apply it or compare it to similar retrieval tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent without usage context.

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