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. It states it's a retrieval operation via the Management API, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'multiple' entails (e.g., all stages by default). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('retrieves multiple workflow stages') and adds necessary context ('in a Storyblok space via the Management API'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on authentication, response format, pagination, error cases, and usage context. For a retrieval tool with multiple filtering options and no output schema, more guidance is needed to ensure the agent can use it effectively.

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 fully documents all four parameters (exclude_id, by_ids, search, in_workflow). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as usage examples or interactions between parameters. With high schema coverage, 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 ('multiple workflow stages in a Storyblok space'), specifying it uses the Management API. It distinguishes from single-retrieval siblings like 'retrieve_single_workflow_stage' by mentioning 'multiple', but doesn't explicitly contrast with other multi-retrieval tools like 'retrieve_multiple_workflows'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., space context), when not to use it, or compare with similar tools like 'retrieve_multiple_workflows' or 'retrieve_single_workflow_stage'. The description is purely functional without contextual advice.

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