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. It discloses that the tool returns a 'module-level summary' and specifies '130 Storyblok Management API tools,' adding useful context about scope. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or response format, which are important for a tool with no output schema. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. It is front-loaded with the key action ('Lists all available tool categories') and includes essential details without waste, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for a simple listing tool, but it could be more complete. It mentions the return is a 'module-level summary' and specifies '130 Storyblok Management API tools,' which helps, but lacks details on the structure of the summary or any limitations. For a tool with no annotations or output schema, more behavioral transparency would improve completeness.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to explain. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter details, earning a high score for compensating with clarity in a parameter-less context.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Lists') and resources ('all available tool categories with their tool counts'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on module-level summary rather than specific operations like create, update, or fetch. It explicitly mentions the context of '130 Storyblok Management API tools,' which sets it apart from other tools that manipulate individual resources.

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 implies usage for getting an overview of available tools, which is clear in context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. Given the sibling tools are all specific operations, this tool's purpose as a summary is distinct, but no explicit guidance on alternatives or prerequisites is provided.

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