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 'Updates an existing Storyblok story by ID,' implying a mutation operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., publishing implications), rate limits, or response format. The mention of 'including publishing' hints at a behavioral trait but is vague and insufficient for comprehensive 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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, using only two sentences. However, the second sentence ('Supports all documented fields including publishing.') is somewhat vague and could be more precise, slightly reducing efficiency but overall maintaining good conciseness.

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 (22 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on parameter semantics, behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and output expectations. For a mutation tool with high parameter count and no structured support, more comprehensive explanation is needed to ensure the agent can invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for 22 undocumented parameters. It only vaguely mentions 'Supports all documented fields including publishing,' which does not explain parameter meanings, usage, or relationships (e.g., 'story_id' as required, 'publish' defaulting to false). This adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap.

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 verb ('Updates') and resource ('an existing Storyblok story by ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bulk_update_stories' or 'create_story', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 (e.g., 'bulk_update_stories' for multiple updates, 'create_story' for new entries). It mentions 'Supports all documented fields including publishing' but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage scenarios.

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