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 mentions the required parameters but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or the return format (e.g., list structure, fields included). For a retrieval tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that convey the core purpose and a key requirement. There's no unnecessary fluff, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage notes). Overall, it's efficient without being overly sparse.

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 of a retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'multiple datasource entries' entails (e.g., pagination, filtering via 'dimension'), the response format, or potential errors. This leaves the agent with incomplete context for 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters (datasource_id, datasource_slug, dimension) with descriptions. The description adds value by emphasizing that either datasource_id or datasource_slug is required, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema covers, aligning with the baseline score.

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 multiple datasource entries') and the resource ('from a specified Storyblok space'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_single_datasource_entry' or 'retrieve_multiple_datasources', but the 'multiple entries' scope is implied.

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 minimal usage guidance by stating 'Requires datasource_id or datasource_slug,' which indicates a prerequisite but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'retrieve_single_datasource_entry' for one entry or 'retrieve_multiple_datasources' for datasource metadata). No explicit when/when-not scenarios or sibling comparisons are included.

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