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 mentions pagination and filtering by status, which adds some context, but fails to address critical aspects such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, warranting a score of 2.

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 in the first sentence, followed by a bulleted list of parameters. This structure is efficient and easy to parse. However, the bullet points repeat information from the schema without adding significant value, slightly reducing conciseness. Overall, it is appropriately sized with minimal waste, earning a score of 4.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like pagination limits or authentication. While adequate for a simple retrieval tool, there are clear gaps that prevent a higher score.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description lists parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'by_status: Filter discussions by status'), but this adds minimal value beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here.

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 discussions') and specifies the resource ('for a specific story in a Storyblok space'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_specific_discussion' or 'retrieve_my_discussions', which limits the score to 4 instead of 5.

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 does not mention sibling tools like 'retrieve_specific_discussion' for single discussions or 'retrieve_my_discussions' for user-specific ones, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of contextual guidance results in a score of 2.

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