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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('restores') but doesn't describe what restoration entails (e.g., returns assets to original state/location, permissions implications), whether it's idempotent, error handling for invalid IDs, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after restoration (e.g., asset state, location changes), success/failure responses, or error conditions. Given the complexity of restoring multiple assets and the lack of structured data, more behavioral context is needed.

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 'ids' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying multiple IDs through 'multiple'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have clarified ID format or constraints.

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 'restores' and the resource 'previously deleted assets', with the modifier 'multiple' indicating bulk operation. It distinguishes from individual restore tools like 'restore_component_version' and 'restore_story' by specifying bulk capability. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling 'delete_multiple_assets' beyond the obvious inverse relationship.

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., assets must be deleted first), limitations (e.g., which asset types can be restored), or when to choose individual restore tools instead. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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