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. While 'Creates' implies a write operation, the description does not specify required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., if a branch ID is returned). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the action from the context. Overall, it is appropriately concise for a basic tool description.

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 complexity of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, idempotency), expected outputs, and usage guidelines. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient, especially for a mutation operation.

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 clear documentation for all four parameters (name, source_id, url, position). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as 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 clearly states the action ('Creates') and resource ('a new branch (pipeline) in a Storyblok space'), with the parenthetical 'pipeline' providing helpful context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_space' or 'create_story', which also create resources in Storyblok, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific creation tool.

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 mentions the 'Management API' as the mechanism, but this is not a usage guideline. There is no indication of prerequisites, dependencies, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_branch_deployment' or 'retrieve_multiple_branches', leaving the agent without context for selection.

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