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 the tool updates metadata or settings, implying a mutation operation, but fails to disclose critical traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with 13 parameters, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no unnecessary verbiage, and it's front-loaded with the core action. However, its brevity contributes to underspecification rather than optimal clarity, slightly reducing its effectiveness.

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 13 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or detailed usage context. For a mutation tool with many parameters, this leaves significant gaps that could hinder correct tool 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 13 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description only vaguely mentions 'metadata or settings' without specifying which parameters correspond to what, such as alt for alternative text or expire_at for expiration dates. It adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names, failing to compensate for the lack of schema 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 states the tool's purpose as 'Update an existing asset's metadata or settings,' which clearly indicates a verb ('Update') and resource ('asset'). However, it's somewhat vague about what specific metadata or settings can be updated, and it doesn't distinguish this tool from other update-related siblings like update_asset_folder or update_story, which could lead to confusion in tool selection.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing asset), exclusions, or compare it to other tools like bulk_update_stories or update_asset_folder. This lack of context could make it difficult for an agent to choose the right tool in scenarios involving asset modifications.

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