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 the tool 'compares' versions but does not specify what 'identify changes' entails—e.g., whether it returns a diff, summary, or detailed list of modifications. It also lacks information on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, which is critical for a tool that likely involves data retrieval and analysis.

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, clear sentence: 'Compares two versions of a story to identify changes.' It is front-loaded with the core action and outcome, with no redundant or verbose language. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to understand at a glance.

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 (comparing versions likely involves detailed output) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the comparison returns, such as a structured diff or change list, leaving users uncertain about the tool's behavior. For a tool with no structured output documentation, more descriptive detail is needed to be complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'story_id' and 'version_v2' clearly documented. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying that 'version_v2' is compared against a current version (as hinted by the parameter name). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description could have clarified the comparison target more explicitly.

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 tool's purpose: 'Compares two versions of a story to identify changes.' It specifies the verb ('compares') and resource ('two versions of a story'), and the outcome ('to identify changes'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_story_versions' or 'restore_story', which might be related but serve different purposes.

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 does not mention prerequisites, such as needing existing story versions, or compare it to siblings like 'get_story_versions' (which might list versions) or 'restore_story' (which might revert to a version). Without this, users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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