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 mentions the Management API but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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 of a retrieval tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, return values, behavioral constraints, and usage context. For a tool interacting with an API, more information is needed to ensure correct invocation.

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%, with one parameter ('preset_id') undocumented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning about the parameter, such as what a preset ID is, where to find it, or its format (e.g., integer). It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the parameter's purpose unclear.

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 preset from a Storyblok space'), and specifies the API ('Management API'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'retrieve_multiple_presets' by indicating 'single', but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'retrieve_multiple_presets' or 'get_story'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a preset ID, or when this retrieval is appropriate compared to bulk operations. Usage is implied but not stated.

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