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. It states 'retrieves' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what 'multiple' entails (e.g., all changes, filtered sets). For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing 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 (retrieval of multiple entities), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'workflow stage changes' are, how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., maximum retrievable items). For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured behavioral hints, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 documents both parameters ('space_id' and 'with_story'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how these parameters affect the retrieval (e.g., that 'with_story' filters results). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 workflow stage changes in a Storyblok space'), making the purpose understandable. It specifies 'via the Management API' for context. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_single_workflow_stage' or 'retrieve_multiple_workflows', which would require more specificity about what distinguishes this retrieval operation.

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 many sibling retrieval tools (e.g., 'retrieve_single_workflow_stage', 'retrieve_multiple_workflows'), there's no indication of whether this is for batch operations, specific filtering scenarios, or other contexts. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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