Storyblok MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a retrieval operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, returns detailed or summary data, or handles errors like invalid IDs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with a content management system.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool in a complex CMS environment. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., approval details, status), error handling, or dependencies, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively beyond basic retrieval.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the 'approval_id' parameter. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or ID sourcing. According to the rules, this results in a baseline score of 3, as 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 ('a single approval by its ID from a specified Storyblok space'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'retrieve_multiple_approvals' beyond the 'single' vs 'multiple' distinction in their names, which is why it doesn't reach 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'retrieve_multiple_approvals' or 'get_story' (which might relate to approvals). It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an approval ID, or exclusions, leaving the agent to 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.