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 states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't describe what happens during the update (e.g., whether it overwrites or merges fields, if it requires specific permissions, or what the response looks like). For a mutation tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Updates an existing task') and includes relevant context ('in a specified Storyblok space using the Management API'). However, it could be more structured by explicitly mentioning key parameters or usage scenarios, but as-is, it's efficiently concise.

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 (7 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or provide any context about the update process beyond the basic action. For a tool with significant parameter and behavioral implications, this minimal description is inadequate to guide an agent effectively.

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 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no information about any parameters—it doesn't mention 'task_id' (the only required parameter) or explain what fields like 'lambda_code' or 'user_dialog' represent. With high parameter count and zero coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters entirely 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 verb ('Updates') and resource ('an existing task in a specified Storyblok space'), which provides a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects of a task can be updated and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_story' or 'update_webhook' beyond the resource type. The mention of 'using the Management API' adds some context but doesn't enhance the core purpose clarity.

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 an existing task ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_task' or 'delete_task'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone, which is insufficient for effective decision-making.

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