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. It states this is a duplication operation via the Management API, implying a write action, 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 is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loads the core action ('Duplicates an existing workflow') and specifies the context ('in a Storyblok space via the Management API'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 a write operation (duplicating a workflow) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, permissions), usage context, and expected outcomes. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective tool invocation is insufficient.

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%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (workflow_id, name, content_types). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents the parameters.

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 workflow in a Storyblok space via the Management API'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_workflow' or 'update_workflow', which would require mentioning that this copies an existing workflow rather than creating one from scratch or modifying it.

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., needing an existing workflow ID), compare it to 'create_workflow' for new workflows, or indicate scenarios where duplication is preferred over creation or updating. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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