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. It states it 'retrieves' schema details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns errors for invalid IDs, or what format the schema details are in. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 retrieval tool with 2 required parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving gaps in parameter meaning, behavioral context, and output details.

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 the schema provides no descriptions for the two parameters. The description mentions 'specific component version' but doesn't explain what 'component_id' and 'version_id' represent, their formats, or where to obtain them. It adds minimal value beyond the schema's basic structure.

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 ('schema details of a specific component version'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_component_versions' (plural) or 'get_component', which might retrieve different aspects of components.

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_component_versions' or 'get_component'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a specific component and version ID, or when this retrieval is appropriate compared to other retrieval methods.

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