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 mentions the API source ('Management API') and optional filtering, but lacks critical behavioral details such as pagination, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like (especially since there's no output schema). For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a concise detail about optional filtering. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate for basic use. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it fails to address important contextual aspects like return format, pagination, or error behavior, leaving gaps for an AI 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 the single parameter 'content_type' fully documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by providing an example ('e.g., 'page', 'article', etc.') that clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's 'Filter by content type', but doesn't significantly enhance understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the work.

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 verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('all workflows in a Storyblok space via the Management API'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar retrieval tools like 'retrieve_single_workflow' or 'retrieve_multiple_workflow_stages', which would be needed 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?

The description implies usage context by mentioning optional filtering by content type, suggesting it's for when you need workflows with that filter. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., 'retrieve_single_workflow' for a specific workflow), nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication or space selection.

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