Storyblok MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Updates an existing datasource,' implying a mutation, but fails to specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and safety.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, efficiently conveying the core action 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 a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, usage context, and expected outcomes, failing to provide a complete understanding for effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description does not add any details about the parameters (datasource_id, dimensions, name, slug), such as their purposes, formats, or constraints. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters ambiguous.

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 'Updates an existing datasource in a specified Storyblok space,' which clearly indicates a mutation operation on a specific resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_datasource_entry' or 'update_space,' leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific update tool versus others.

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 'create_datasource' for new datasources or other update tools for different resources. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with siblings, offering minimal usage direction.

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