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. It states this is an 'Adds' operation, implying a write/mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate attempts, or what the response looks like. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for a mutation tool.

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—two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides critical parameter guidance. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information.

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 this is a mutation tool (adding a collaborator) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on permissions required, error conditions, response format, and how it differs from sibling tools like 'update_collaborator'. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is insufficient 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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity of 'role', 'space_role_id', and 'space_role_ids', but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Adds') and resource ('a collaborator to a space in Storyblok'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_collaborator' or 'delete_collaborator', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 some usage guidance by specifying 'Use either role (string) OR space_role_id (int) OR space_role_ids (list)', which helps with parameter selection. However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_collaborator' or 'create_space_role', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for adding collaborators.

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