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 only states the basic action ('retrieves') without detailing behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated clearly in the first sentence. The bullet point for the parameter is efficient, though it could be integrated into the main sentence. There is minimal waste, but it lacks depth in usage or behavioral details that might be necessary.

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 does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., discussion details, error responses) or behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects. For a retrieval tool in a context with many sibling tools, more guidance on usage and output is needed to be fully helpful.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'discussion_id' fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the parameter explanation ('Numeric ID of the discussion') without adding meaningful context beyond the schema, such as where to find the ID or format examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Retrieves a specific discussion by its ID in a Storyblok space.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('discussion'), and scope ('by its ID in a Storyblok space'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_multiple_discussions' or 'retrieve_my_discussions', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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. It does not mention sibling tools like 'retrieve_multiple_discussions' for bulk retrieval or 'retrieve_my_discussions' for user-specific discussions. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites, such as needing a valid discussion ID.

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