Storyblok MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It doesn't mention required permissions, whether the update is reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified fields. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with 20 parameters.

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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic purpose statement, though its brevity contributes to deficiencies in other dimensions.

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 (20 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema coverage), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, parameter guidance, usage rules, and output information, making it inadequate for proper 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 all 20 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond implying 'extension_id' is required and 'context' exists, failing to compensate for the massive coverage gap. This leaves the agent guessing about most parameters.

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 resource ('an existing extension') with specific context ('organization or partner'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_extension' or 'delete_extension' beyond the basic verb difference, which prevents a perfect score.

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 minimal guidance by mentioning the context ('organization or partner'), but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, prerequisites, or alternatives. It doesn't clarify when to use this versus 'create_extension' or other update tools, leaving the agent with insufficient usage direction.

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