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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieval and filtering by status, but fails to describe key behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), if it requires authentication, pagination details beyond defaults, rate limits, or error handling. 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet points for parameters. It avoids unnecessary details, but the bullet points are redundant with the schema, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it's concise and well-structured, though not perfectly optimized.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details. Without annotations or an output schema, it should provide more completeness, such as explaining return values or error cases, leaving room for improvement.

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%, meaning the input schema already documents all parameters (page, per_page, by_status) with their defaults and constraints. The description repeats this information verbatim in bullet points, adding no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 tool's purpose: 'Retrieves discussions you're involved in within a Storyblok space.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('discussions'), and scope ('you're involved in,' 'within a Storyblok space'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_multiple_discussions' or 'retrieve_specific_discussion,' which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 lacks any mention of prerequisites, context, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'retrieve_multiple_discussions' (which might fetch all discussions) or 'retrieve_specific_discussion' (for a single discussion). This absence of usage instructions limits its effectiveness for an AI agent.

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