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 it's a creation operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the API context.

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 (a mutation operation with 4 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain behavioral traits like side effects, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe and effective use. The high schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for other gaps.

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 four parameters (name, domain, story_published_hook, environments) with descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples, constraints, or default values. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 Storyblok space'), specifying it's done via the Management API. It distinguishes from siblings like 'duplicate_space' or 'fetch_spaces' by focusing on creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_story' or 'create_component' beyond the resource type.

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., permissions, existing resources), when not to use it, or how it compares to similar tools like 'duplicate_space' or 'update_space'. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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