Storyblok MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's an update operation via an API, implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if it overwrites other fields), rate limits, or response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a bulleted list of parameters. Each sentence earns its place, though the bullet points could be more integrated into the narrative flow.

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 (mutation tool with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., error handling, permissions), output information, and full parameter guidance, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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. It lists all 4 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Numeric ID of the schedule to update'), adding meaning beyond the schema's titles. However, it doesn't cover parameter constraints (e.g., format for 'publish_at' beyond 'ISO-8601 UTC'), leaving some gaps.

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 story schedule'), specifying it's for the Storyblok Management API. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_story_schedule' by focusing on updates, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other update tools (e.g., 'update_story').

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_story' or 'create_story_schedule'. The description mentions it updates an existing schedule but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing schedule ID) or exclusions, leaving usage context implied.

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