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 states the tool 'Retrieves' internal tags, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, what permissions are needed, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and usage, with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main action, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from guidelines.

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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values look like (e.g., list of tags, format), any behavioral traits like error handling or pagination, or how it integrates with the broader context of Storyblok spaces. This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('by_object_type' and 'search') in the input schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the 'by_object_type' filter with values 'asset' or 'component', which is already covered in the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('internal tags (asset/component) from a specified Storyblok space'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'retrieve_multiple_tags' or 'retrieve_all_extensions' beyond mentioning the 'asset/component' filter, which is somewhat implied but not strongly contrasted.

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 implied usage by specifying to use 'by_object_type' with values 'asset' or 'component' to filter, which gives some context on when to apply this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'retrieve_multiple_tags' or other retrieval tools, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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