Storyblok MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieval but does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like. For a tool with zero 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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core functionality without redundancy or fluff, earning a top score for brevity and structure.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects such as authentication needs, error responses, or how the activity log is structured, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable tool invocation in a complex environment.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, with one parameter ('activity_id') documented only by title and type in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by specifying that it retrieves 'by its ID', but does not explain the ID format, source, or constraints. This provides some value over the bare schema, but not enough to fully compensate for the low coverage.

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 ('a single activity log by its ID from a specified Storyblok space'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_multiple_activities', which is a similar retrieval operation but for multiple items, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.

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, such as 'retrieve_multiple_activities' for batch retrieval or other retrieval tools in the sibling list. It lacks context on prerequisites, error conditions, or specific use cases, offering only a basic functional statement without usage instructions.

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