Storyblok MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'completes' a process, implying a mutation, but fails to specify permissions required, side effects (e.g., asset availability changes), error handling, or response format. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and context, making it easy to parse quickly with zero wasted words.

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 insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, side effects), error scenarios, and what 'completes' entails operationally. Given the complexity implied by 'S3 upload' integration, more context is needed for effective agent 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'asset_id' documented as 'ID of the asset to finalize.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as format examples or validation rules. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Completes') and resource ('asset upload process'), specifying it occurs 'after S3 upload.' This distinguishes it from general upload tools, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'init_asset_upload' or 'update_asset,' leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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 implies usage after S3 upload, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'init_asset_upload' or 'update_asset,' nor does it mention prerequisites, dependencies, or error conditions. This lack of context makes it challenging for an agent to determine optimal usage.

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