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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a mutation (restoring changes content), but doesn't disclose permissions required, whether it's reversible, rate limits, or what happens to the current version. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Restores a story') and specifies the target ('to a specific version'), making it easy to parse 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'restore' entails (e.g., does it revert all changes, affect linked assets?), potential side effects, error conditions, or return values. Given the complexity of version restoration, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 ('id', 'version_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these parameters exist, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

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 ('restores') and resource ('a story'), specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_story' or 'get_story_versions' by focusing on version restoration, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'restore_component_version' which serves a similar function for components.

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 version IDs from 'get_story_versions'), consequences (e.g., overwriting current content), or sibling tools like 'bulk_restore_assets' for multiple items. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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