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 mentions the tool 'initializes' and 'returns' a URL, implying a non-destructive operation, but fails to detail critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or the lifecycle of the upload process. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves external S3 interactions.

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 and outcome without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, 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 initializing an upload with S3 integration, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value's structure, potential side effects, or how the signed URL should be used, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective 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, clearly documenting all three required parameters (filename, size, content_type). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or usage examples. Thus, it meets the baseline score as the schema handles 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 action ('initializes asset upload') and the outcome ('returns signed S3 upload URL'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'complete_asset_upload' or 'bulk_move_assets', which might handle related asset operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'complete_asset_upload' or other asset-related siblings. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical workflows, or scenarios where this initialization is necessary, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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