Storyblok MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'Management API' context, which hints at potential authentication needs, but fails to specify required permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate, leaving critical operational traits undefined.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Retrieves multiple tags') and includes necessary context ('from a specified Storyblok space using the Management API'). Every part earns its place, making it optimally concise.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose and API context, but without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention more about behavior (e.g., response format, pagination) or usage constraints. It meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps in guidance and transparency.

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%, with the single parameter 'search' documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides (e.g., how the search query works or typical use cases). According to rules, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high (>80%) and no param info is added in the description.

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 tags from a specified Storyblok space'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_multiple_internal_tags' or 'retrieve_single_webhook', which could cause confusion about scope. It avoids tautology by specifying the API context ('Management API'), but lacks sibling distinction 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., space specification), exclusions, or comparisons to other retrieval tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'retrieve_multiple_internal_tags'). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection, relying solely on the name.

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