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 operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 efficiently structured with a clear main sentence followed by parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place, with zero wasted words, 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 simple read operation with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally provide more context about return values, error handling, or authentication requirements to be fully complete.

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 with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting 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 ('retrieves') and resource ('a single field plugin'), specifying it's by ID and context. It distinguishes from sibling 'retrieve_field_plugins' (plural) by emphasizing 'single', but doesn't explicitly contrast with other retrieval tools like 'retrieve_extension' or 'retrieve_component'.

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 when you need a specific field plugin by ID, with context parameter guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'retrieve_field_plugins' for multiple plugins or other retrieval tools for different resource types, 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.