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. It states it's a retrieval operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like (especially important since there's no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to properly invoke it.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one explaining the parameter. It's front-loaded with the main action. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for clarity).

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 (a read operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'story schedule entry' contains, how results are returned, or any error conditions. For a tool that retrieves data, the lack of output details is a significant gap, making it hard for an agent to use effectively.

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 minimal parameter semantics: it explains that 'story_scheduling_id' is the 'Numeric ID of the schedule to retrieve'. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, this provides basic meaning beyond the schema's type information. However, it doesn't specify format constraints, valid ranges, or where to obtain this ID, leaving room for improvement.

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 ('a single story schedule entry') with specific context ('by its ID in a Storyblok space via the Management API'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'retrieve_multiple_story_schedules' by specifying 'single', but doesn't explicitly mention other retrieval alternatives like 'get_story' or 'retrieve_story_schedule' (which doesn't exist in the list).

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 sibling tools like 'retrieve_multiple_story_schedules' for bulk operations or 'get_story' for different data types, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts beyond the basic action.

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