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 roles, permissions, or access paths, implying a mutation operation, but fails to mention critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, clearly stating the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance without unnecessary elaboration.

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 8 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter meanings, behavioral traits, and expected outcomes, making it incomplete for effective tool use. A mutation tool with this level of undocumented complexity requires more comprehensive guidance.

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 8 parameters are documented in the schema. The description only mentions 'roles, permissions, or access paths' in general terms, without explaining specific parameters like 'collaborator_id', 'allowed_paths', or 'field_permissions'. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the tool name, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Updates') and target ('roles, permissions, or access paths for an existing collaborator'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_collaborator' or 'delete_collaborator', which would require mentioning it modifies existing collaborators rather than creating or removing them.

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, such as 'add_collaborator' for new collaborators or 'delete_collaborator' for removal. It lacks context on prerequisites, like needing an existing collaborator ID, or exclusions, such as not being for creating collaborators.

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