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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Duplicates' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify whether this is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing spaces), requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the expected output looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial behavioral details (e.g., side effects, permissions), usage context, and output expectations. The high parameter count and mutation nature demand more guidance than provided.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('Duplicates') and resource ('an existing Storyblok space'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies the mechanism ('via the Management API'), which adds useful context. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_space' or 'backup_space', which would require explicit comparison.

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 'create_space' (for new spaces) or 'backup_space' (for backups). There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without contextual decision-making help.

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