Storyblok MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves comments but does not mention critical aspects like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, handles pagination, or returns error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves operationally.

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 brief and to the point, using a clear sentence followed by a bullet point for the parameter. It avoids unnecessary verbosity and is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the bullet point slightly disrupts flow, and it could be more integrated into a single cohesive statement.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., comment structure, error responses) or address behavioral traits like rate limits or permissions. For a retrieval tool with no structured support, more contextual detail is needed to guide 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'discussion_uuid' fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the parameter explanation without adding extra meaning, such as format examples or contextual usage. This meets the baseline score since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 target resource ('comments for a specific idea discussion'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_multiple_comments' or 'retrieve_specific_discussion', which could handle similar data, so it falls short of 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'retrieve_multiple_comments' for broader queries or 'retrieve_specific_discussion' for discussion details. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, offering minimal usage direction.

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