Storyblok MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'retrieves' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes rate limits, or what format the extensions are returned in. The description is minimal beyond the basic action.

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 concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another explaining the parameter. The structure with an 'Args:' section is clear, though the parameter explanation could be integrated more smoothly. No wasted words.

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 simple retrieval tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information about return format, authentication requirements, or error conditions that would be helpful for an agent. The absence of annotations increases the need for more behavioral context.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the schema already fully documents the 'context' parameter with enum values and description. The description repeats this information in the Args section, adding no additional semantic value beyond what's in the schema. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher.

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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('all extensions (plugins)') with the scope ('from the specified context'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_extension' (singular) or 'retrieve_all_extension_settings', but the 'all' qualifier provides some implicit distinction.

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 like 'retrieve_extension' (singular retrieval) or other retrieval tools in the sibling list. It mentions the context parameter options but doesn't explain when to choose 'org' vs 'partner' contexts or prerequisites for usage.

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