Storyblok MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'retrieves' which implies a read operation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens when no datasources match. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this concise formulation.

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 read operation with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable context. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details, output format information, and guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally explain return values, which it doesn't.

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. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't provide extra context about how parameters interact or typical usage patterns.

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 ('multiple datasources from a specified Storyblok space'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_single_datasource' or 'fetch_stories', which would be needed for 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. With sibling tools like 'retrieve_single_datasource' and 'fetch_stories' available, there's no indication whether this is for bulk operations, filtered retrieval, or specific use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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