Storyblok MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a creation operation via an API, implying it's a write/mutation tool, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response looks like. 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose clearly. The 'Required:' section efficiently lists parameters, though it could be more integrated. There's no wasted text, but the structure is slightly disjointed between the purpose statement and parameter list.

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 7 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns a discussion ID), error handling, or system constraints. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but other contextual gaps remain significant.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description repeats the parameter names and adds minimal context (e.g., 'Technical name of the discussion field' for fieldname), but doesn't provide significant additional meaning beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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: 'Creates a new discussion for a story via the Storyblok Management API.' It specifies the verb ('creates'), resource ('discussion'), and context ('for a story'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_comment' or 'resolve_discussion', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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., needing an existing story), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'create_comment' or 'retrieve_multiple_discussions'. The 'Required:' section lists parameters but doesn't offer usage context.

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