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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'checks' implies a read-only diagnostic operation, it doesn't specify what constitutes 'health' or 'connectivity,' whether authentication is required, what the response format might be, or if there are rate limits. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple diagnostic tool and front-loads the core functionality immediately.

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 diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'health' or 'connectivity' mean in practice, what the expected response looks like, or how to interpret results. While simple, it leaves critical behavioral aspects undefined that an agent would need to use it effectively.

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 fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It earns a baseline 4 for not needing to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.

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 ('checks server health and Storyblok API connectivity'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on diagnostic connectivity rather than content management operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like 'list_tools' or other diagnostic endpoints.

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, timing considerations, or what to do with the results. In a server with many tools, this leaves the agent guessing about appropriate contexts for health checking.

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