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' via the 'Management API,' implying a mutation operation, but fails to describe critical traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with 16 parameters and no 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded. However, it's overly concise given the tool's complexity, as it omits necessary details that would help an agent understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool's complexity (16 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to handle partial updates, or the meaning of parameters, leaving significant gaps for an agent to navigate.

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 description provides no information about parameters, while the input schema has 0% description coverage and 16 parameters (e.g., 'ai_translation_disabled,' 'billing_address'). With such low schema coverage and no parameter details in the description, the agent lacks essential semantic context for using the tool effectively.

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 Storyblok space via the Management API,' which provides a clear verb ('Updates') and resource ('Storyblok space'), but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_space_role' or 'update_story' beyond specifying the resource type. It's vague about what aspects of the space are updated, lacking specificity compared to siblings.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing space ID), exclusions, or comparisons with tools like 'create_space' or 'delete_space.' Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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