Storyblok MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'advanced filtering and pagination' but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, error handling, or what happens with large result sets. For a tool with 30 parameters and no 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 purpose. Every word earns its place: 'fetch' (action), 'multiple stories' (resource), 'from Storyblok' (source), 'with advanced filtering and pagination' (key features). No wasted words or redundant information.

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 complex tool with 30 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'stories' are in Storyblok context, the return format, error conditions, or usage constraints. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema, which lacks behavioral context. This is inadequate for proper tool selection and invocation.

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 fully documents all 30 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying filtering capabilities. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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 verb 'fetch' and resource 'stories from Storyblok', making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_story' (singular) and 'bulk_create_stories' (write operation) by focusing on retrieving multiple items with filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list/fetch tools like 'fetch_assets' or 'fetch_components' beyond mentioning 'stories'.

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, when to choose this over 'get_story' for single items, or how it relates to other fetch tools like 'fetch_assets'. The phrase 'advanced filtering and pagination' implies use cases but doesn't specify contexts or exclusions.

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