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 implies a read-only operation ('retrieves') but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond defaults, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational characteristics.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet-point parameter details. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by emphasizing the user-specific aspect earlier. No wasted verbiage is present.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral context and usage differentiation. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in guiding the agent on when and how to use it effectively compared to alternatives.

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 all three parameters: it explains 'space_id' as the 'Numeric ID of the space', provides defaults and limits for 'page' and 'per_page', and clarifies 'by_status' filtering options. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well by documenting parameter purposes beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 verb ('retrieves') and resource ('discussions you're involved in within a Storyblok space'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'retrieve_multiple_discussions' or 'retrieve_specific_discussion', which would require mentioning the user-specific filtering aspect more prominently.

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 'retrieve_multiple_discussions' or 'retrieve_specific_discussion'. It mentions the 'space_id' parameter but doesn't explain prerequisites or contextual usage scenarios, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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