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 it 'retrieves' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond parameters, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of objects with specific fields). For a retrieval 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, but includes a redundant Args section that repeats schema information without adding value. The first sentence is clear, but the subsequent parameter listings are unnecessary given the schema coverage, making it slightly bloated. It could be more concise by omitting the Args section.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior (e.g., total count, next page), error cases, and the structure of returned data. For a retrieval tool with multiple parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 documents all parameters with descriptions and defaults. The description repeats some parameter details (e.g., 'only_mine (int): 1 = only plugins created by authenticated user') but adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the resource 'multiple field plugins (field types)' with the scope 'across different contexts', which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_field_plugin' (singular) or other retrieval tools, though the context of 'multiple' and 'across different contexts' 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'retrieve_field_plugin' (singular) or other retrieval tools (e.g., 'retrieve_all_extensions'), nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases beyond the basic functionality.

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