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 implies a read-only operation ('Retrieves'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like (since there's no output schema). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with zero waste. It front-loads the core action and resource, and every word earns its place by specifying the method and API context. No unnecessary details or redundancy.

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 (a read operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or behavioral context needed for effective use. With 100% schema coverage for the single parameter, the description fails to address the broader usage context adequately.

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%, with the parameter 'branch_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, constraints, or context). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or add 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 action ('Retrieves') and resource ('a single branch (pipeline)'), with the specific method ('by its ID via the Storyblok Management API'). It distinguishes from sibling 'retrieve_multiple_branches' by specifying 'single', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other retrieval tools like 'retrieve_single_activity' or 'retrieve_single_workflow' beyond the resource type.

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., authentication), when to choose it over 'retrieve_multiple_branches' or other retrieval tools, or any context-specific constraints. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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