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 but only states the basic operation. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what format the spaces are returned in, whether there's pagination, rate limits, or any other behavioral characteristics. The description is minimal and lacks important context for safe invocation.

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 with no wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool with no parameters.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'accessible spaces' means (permissions? visibility?), what format the data returns in, whether there are limitations on what's retrieved, or how this differs from other space-related tools. The agent lacks critical context for proper 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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description doesn't detract from this.

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 ('all accessible spaces'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other space-related retrieval tools like 'get_space' or 'fetch_stories', which could retrieve spaces in different contexts or with different scopes.

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_space' (which appears to retrieve a single space) or 'fetch_stories' (which might retrieve stories within spaces). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions that would help an agent choose between these similar tools.

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