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 'Retrieve multiple assets' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it's paginated (implied by parameters but not stated), or what the output format is. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, 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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part of the sentence contributing essential information (action, resource, source).

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 (10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return values, pagination behavior, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a retrieval tool with many filtering options, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'Page number', 'Search query for filtering assets'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('multiple assets'), and specifies the source ('Storyblok Management API'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar retrieval tools like 'get_asset' (singular) or 'fetch_asset_folder', which could cause confusion about when to use each.

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 'get_asset' (for single assets) or 'fetch_asset_folder' (for folders). It also doesn't mention prerequisites, such as authentication or space context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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