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 tokens but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'retrieve'), potential rate limits, authentication requirements beyond 'Management API', or what the output format might be (e.g., list of tokens with details). The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no 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?

Given the complexity (a retrieval operation with no parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'retrieve all' entails (e.g., pagination, format of returned tokens) or any behavioral aspects like safety or performance. For a tool that likely returns sensitive access token data, more context is needed.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline. It appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose.

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 ('retrieve all access tokens') and target resource ('for the current Storyblok space'), with specificity about using the Management API. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_access_token' or 'delete_access_token' beyond the verb 'retrieve' versus 'create'/'delete', which is somewhat implied but not stated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if this is for listing tokens versus retrieving a specific one (though no sibling tool exists for a single token), or any prerequisites like authentication context. The description is purely functional without usage context.

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