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 mentions the 'Management API' but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (especially since there's no output schema). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 lacks details on authentication, response format, error handling, and how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool that retrieves data, this minimal description doesn't provide enough context for effective use.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter. It doesn't explain what 'webhook_endpoint_id' represents, how to obtain it, or its format beyond the schema's 'integer' type. The description adds no parameter-specific information, failing to address the coverage gap.

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 webhook from a specified Storyblok space'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_multiple_webhooks' or 'get_story', which are similar retrieval operations on different resources.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific space or permissions), compare it to 'retrieve_multiple_webhooks', or indicate scenarios where retrieving a single webhook is preferred over other operations.

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