Storyblok MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a story and supports publishing, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns story ID). For a mutation tool with 16 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a creation tool, though it could be slightly more structured by separating core functionality from the publishing feature.

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?

For a complex mutation tool with 16 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (success response format), error handling, or important behavioral aspects like whether the story is immediately visible. The agent lacks critical context needed to use this tool 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 16 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'all documented fields including publishing' which loosely references the 'publish' parameter, but doesn't provide additional context, examples, or relationships between parameters beyond what's in the schema.

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 verb ('Creates') and resource ('new Storyblok story'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'bulk_create_stories' by focusing on single creation, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'create_story_schedule' or other creation tools. The mention of 'all documented fields including publishing' adds specificity but doesn't fully differentiate from all alternatives.

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 like 'bulk_create_stories' or 'create_story_schedule'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameter set alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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