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. It states 'creates' implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or what happens on success/failure. For a creation tool with 19 parameters, this lack of context 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more informative given the tool's complexity without sacrificing brevity.

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 (19 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the creation process, expected outcomes, error handling, or how it differs from similar tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 19 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the 'context' parameter but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('new extension'), and specifies the context ('organization or partner'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_field_plugin' or 'create_component', which might create similar resources in different domains.

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, such as 'update_extension' or 'retrieve_extension'. It mentions the context parameter but doesn't explain when to choose 'org' vs 'partner' or prerequisites like required permissions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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