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 vaguely mentions 'debug access' and 'various fetch parameters,' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, if it requires special permissions, what output to expect, or if it has side effects like logging. This leaves the agent guessing about the tool's safety and operation.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and efficient, with no wasted words. It directly states the tool's function without redundancy. However, it could be more structured by elaborating on key aspects, but it earns a high score for brevity and clarity within its limited scope.

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 implied by 'debug' and 'various fetch parameters,' the description is incomplete. No annotations or output schema exist, and the description fails to explain what debugging entails, what results are returned, or how it differs from similar tools. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'story_id' clearly documented as 'ID of the story to debug.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain 'various fetch parameters' or provide context for the parameter. With high schema coverage, the 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 states the tool 'debugs access to a specific story via various fetch parameters,' which provides a vague purpose. It mentions the resource (story) and a high-level action (debug access), but lacks specificity on what 'debug' entails or what 'various fetch parameters' are. It doesn't clearly differentiate from siblings like 'get_story' or 'fetch_stories,' making it unclear if this is for testing, logging, or error analysis.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'various fetch parameters' but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given siblings like 'get_story' for retrieving story data, there's no indication of when 'debug_story_access' is preferred, such as for troubleshooting permissions or network issues.

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