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 states the tool uses the 'Management API' but doesn't describe authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the return data looks like (no output schema). For a read operation with zero 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 that states the core purpose without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative (e.g., adding a note on usage context) without losing 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. It doesn't explain what data is returned, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool that interacts with an external API (Storyblok Management API), more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 'webhook_endpoint_id' documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or constraints), so it meets the baseline 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 action ('Retrieves') and resource ('a single webhook from a specified Storyblok space'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_multiple_webhooks' or 'get_webhook' (if those existed), though the 'single' qualifier provides some implicit distinction.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific webhook ID), compare it to sibling tools like 'retrieve_multiple_webhooks' (which exists in the list), or specify use cases. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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