Storyblok MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'Adds a comment', implying a write/mutation operation, but does not address permissions, rate limits, side effects (e.g., notifications), or response format. The mention of 'via the Storyblok Management API' adds minimal context, but key behavioral details are missing 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The bullet points for parameters are somewhat redundant given the schema coverage but are structured clearly. No unnecessary sentences are present, though the parameter details could be trimmed for better 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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., authentication needs, error handling) and does not explain the return value or potential side effects, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description repeats some parameter details (e.g., 'discussion_id: Numeric ID of the discussion'), adding little value beyond the schema. It does not explain interactions between parameters (e.g., if 'message' overrides 'message_json'), keeping it at the baseline score.

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 ('Adds a comment') and target resource ('to a discussion via the Storyblok Management API'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_comment' or 'delete_comment', though the verb 'Adds' implies creation rather than modification or deletion.

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 (e.g., needing an existing discussion), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'create_discussion' or 'retrieve_multiple_comments', leaving the agent to infer context 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.