Storyblok MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Publishes' suggests a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, error handling for partial failures, or what 'publishing' actually does (e.g., makes stories public, triggers workflows). This is inadequate 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Publishes multiple stories by ID.' It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, earning full marks for 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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what publishing entails, return values, error cases, or how it interacts with sibling tools. For a bulk operation that likely has significant side effects, this leaves critical gaps for an agent.

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%, with the single parameter 'story_ids' well-documented in the schema as 'Array of story IDs to publish'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying IDs are required, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Publishes multiple stories by ID' clearly states the verb ('publishes') and resource ('stories'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling 'publish_story'. It specifies 'multiple' and 'by ID', which helps, but lacks detail on what publishing entails or how it differs from the single-story version.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'publish_story' or 'bulk_update_stories'. The description implies it's for batch operations, but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or when it's preferred over individual publishes. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate contexts.

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