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 of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the extension doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one detailing parameters. The 'Args' section is structured but somewhat redundant with the schema. While efficient, it could be more front-loaded by integrating parameter context into the main description.

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 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic operation. However, for a tool with no annotations, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling, permissions, or return format. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description repeats the parameter information in the 'Args' section, adding no additional semantic value beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, this results in a baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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: 'Retrieves the settings of a specific extension by its numeric ID.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('settings of a specific extension'), and method ('by its numeric ID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_all_extensions' or 'retrieve_extension_settings', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 context through the parameter explanation ('context to retrieve the extension from'), suggesting this tool is for fetching a single extension's settings. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'retrieve_all_extensions' or 'retrieve_extension_settings', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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