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 this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 extremely concise - a single sentence that gets straight to the point without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for what it does convey, though it could benefit from additional context.

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 this is a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what can be updated, how to use the parameters, what permissions are needed, or what to expect in return. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about what parameters are required, what they represent, or how they should be used. This leaves all parameters undocumented, creating a major gap for the agent.

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 resource ('an existing datasource entry in a specified Storyblok space'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_datasource' or 'create_datasource_entry', which would require more specificity about what distinguishes this particular update operation.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a datasource entry ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'update_datasource' or 'bulk_update_stories'. This leaves the agent without context for proper tool selection.

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