Storyblok MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's an update operation via the Management API, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response looks like (since no output schema exists). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 purpose ('Update an existing access token') and includes essential context ('in the current Storyblok space via the Management API'). Every word earns its place without 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 complexity (mutation tool with 6 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage guidelines, and output information. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't compensate for other gaps, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters (e.g., token_id, access, name). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints for fields like 'access' (e.g., valid access levels). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Update') and resource ('an existing access token'), specifying it operates in the current Storyblok space via the Management API. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_access_token' (creation vs. update) and 'delete_access_token' (update vs. deletion), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools (e.g., 'update_space', 'update_story').

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 an existing token ID), exclusions, or comparisons with similar tools like 'create_access_token' for new tokens or 'retrieve_multiple_access_tokens' for viewing tokens. 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.