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 the tool 'retrieves' versions, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or response format. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, output structure, and usage context. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to compensate for missing annotations and output details, making it inadequate for informed tool 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting all 6 parameters clearly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., 'version_id' overrides 'by_story_id' filtering). 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 verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('versions (revisions) of stories'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'compare_story_versions' or 'retrieve_component_versions', which could cause confusion in tool selection.

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, such as 'compare_story_versions' or 'get_story'. There are no usage prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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