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 Management API but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'retrieves' but not explicit). For a tool with no 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 action ('retrieves a single task') and includes key context ('from a specified Storyblok space using the Management API'). There is no wasted wording, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 adequate. It covers the basic purpose and API context but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, and output expectations, which are needed for full contextual understanding in a server with many sibling tools.

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, with 'task_id' clearly documented as 'ID of the task to retrieve'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate 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 verb ('retrieves') and resource ('a single task'), specifying it's from a Storyblok space using the Management API. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_multiple_tasks' or 'get_story', which might retrieve similar resources but with different scopes or methods.

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, such as 'retrieve_multiple_tasks' for multiple tasks or 'get_story' for story retrieval. It lacks context about prerequisites, like needing a specific space or permissions, which is crucial given the many sibling tools available.

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