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 states it's an update operation, implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. The mention of 'Management API' hints at administrative access but is not explicit. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Params, Request Body, Returns) and uses bullet points for readability. It is appropriately sized, though the 'Returns' section could be more specific instead of 'Any: A success message or an error message', which is somewhat vague.

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 (6 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but misses behavioral context (e.g., side effects, auth needs) and return value details. For a tool with no structured safety or output info, it should provide more guidance on usage and outcomes.

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 significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clearly explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'New access level for the token', 'New name for the token'), including optional ones and their semantics, compensating fully for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('Update an existing access token') and resource ('in the current Storyblok space via the Management API'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_access_token' or 'delete_access_token', which would require mentioning what distinguishes an update from creation or deletion.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing token ID), compare it to 'create_access_token' or 'delete_access_token', or specify scenarios where updating is appropriate (e.g., modifying permissions or renewing tokens).

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