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 states it's a retrieval operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.

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 unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. There is no wasted language, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 retrieving multiple scheduling entries, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format, error handling, or usage constraints. For a tool with no structured support, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful to an agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('space_id' and 'by_status'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage context. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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 story scheduling entries in a Storyblok space'), making the purpose understandable. It specifies the API ('Management API') for context. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'retrieve_one_story_schedule' or 'fetch_stories', which limits its differentiation.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'retrieve_one_story_schedule' for single entries or 'fetch_stories' for general story retrieval, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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