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 via the Storyblok Management API, implying it's a mutation that requires API access, but doesn't specify required permissions, rate limits, side effects (e.g., if changes affect existing users), or response format. For a mutation tool with 12 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 with just one sentence: 'Updates a space role's configuration via the Storyblok Management API.' It's front-loaded with the core action and includes the API context, with zero wasted words. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 (12 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'space role' is, what configuration aspects can be updated, required permissions, response format, or error handling. For such a rich tool, this minimal description fails to provide necessary context.

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 12 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no information about what parameters like 'allowed_languages', 'field_permissions', or 'branch_ids' mean or how they affect the space role configuration. This leaves all parameters semantically undocumented.

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 a space role's configuration' which provides a clear verb ('Updates') and resource ('space role's configuration'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'update_space' or 'update_collaborator' that also update configurations of different resources, leaving room for confusion about scope.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a space_role_id), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'create_space_role' or 'delete_space_role'. This lack of context makes it hard for an agent to choose correctly among siblings.

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