Storyblok MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation using the Management API, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the webhooks are returned in. For a tool with no 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying the core functionality.

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?

For a retrieval tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks parameter explanations, behavioral context, usage guidance, and output format information. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional documentation.

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 has descriptions in the schema. The description provides no information about the 'page' and 'per_page' parameters, their purpose, valid ranges, or how they affect pagination. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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 webhook endpoints from a specified Storyblok space'), providing specific verb+resource information. It distinguishes from 'retrieve_single_webhook' by indicating 'multiple' endpoints. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list/retrieve tools like 'fetch_stories' or 'retrieve_multiple_access_tokens' beyond the resource type.

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 when this tool is appropriate, what prerequisites exist (e.g., needing a specific space), or when to choose other webhook-related tools like 'retrieve_single_webhook', 'add_webhook', or 'delete_webhook'. The only contextual clue is the resource type.

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