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 states the tool creates a new field plugin but fails to describe critical behaviors like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, potential side effects (e.g., impact on existing plugins), or error handling. This omission is significant for a creation tool with potential system-wide effects.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured 'Args' section. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but the 'Args' section could be integrated more seamlessly or omitted since it duplicates schema details, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 creating a field plugin (a potentially impactful write operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, success/failure responses, and usage context, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use the tool effectively and safely.

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%, meaning the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing parameters in the 'Args' section, but this largely repeats schema information without providing additional context, such as examples for 'body' or implications of 'context' choices. 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 field plugin (field type)'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_extension' or 'create_component', which might also create plugins or similar entities in the system, leaving some ambiguity in distinguishing 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'create_extension' or 'update_field_plugin', nor does it mention prerequisites, dependencies, or contextual constraints beyond the 'context' parameter. This lack of usage context leaves the agent without clear direction for tool selection.

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