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 states the tool marks a discussion as resolved, implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or what happens to the discussion post-resolution. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with a clear opening sentence followed by bullet points. However, the bullet points merely repeat schema information without adding value, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it's concise but could be more informative.

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 is a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, error conditions) and doesn't explain the return value or outcome. For a 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, it compensates poorly for missing annotation and output information.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description repeats the parameter details verbatim from the schema, adding no additional meaning or context beyond what's already structured. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Marks a discussion as resolved') and the resource ('discussion'), with the context of the Storyblok Management API. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_discussion' or 'retrieve_specific_discussion' by specifying the resolution action, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing discussion), exclusions, or related tools like 'update_discussion' if applicable. The description only states what it does, not when to apply it.

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