Storyblok MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states it's a retrieval operation (implied read-only) but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error responses, or what specific data is returned (e.g., entry fields, metadata). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness (e.g., by hinting at return format).

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete but lacks depth. It identifies the tool's purpose and API context, yet omits details on usage, behavioral traits, or output—making it adequate for basic understanding but insufficient for robust agent operation without external knowledge.

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 single parameter 'datasource_entry_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying retrieval targets an entry via ID. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—adequate but no extra value from the description.

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 target ('a single datasource entry'), with the specific API context ('via the Storyblok Management API'). It distinguishes from bulk retrieval siblings like 'retrieve_multiple_datasource_entries' by specifying 'single', but doesn't explicitly contrast with other single-retrieval tools like 'retrieve_single_datasource'.

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., needing a datasource entry ID), compare with similar tools (e.g., 'retrieve_single_datasource' for metadata vs. this for entry content), or indicate error conditions. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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