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 for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Updates' which implies mutation, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid IDs), or response format. For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, 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 ('Updates') and scope ('existing collaborator'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 complexity (8 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return value, error handling, or behavioral nuances needed for safe invocation. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context for a mutation tool is incomplete.

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 8 parameters. The description adds minimal value by listing 'roles, permissions, or access paths', which loosely maps to parameters like 'role', 'permissions', and 'allowed_paths', but doesn't clarify relationships (e.g., that 'space_role_id' and 'space_role_ids' might be alternatives) or provide syntax examples beyond the schema.

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 ('Updates') and target ('roles, permissions, or access paths for an existing collaborator'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_collaborator' or 'delete_collaborator', which would require mentioning it modifies existing collaborators rather than creating or removing them.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing collaborator), exclusions (e.g., what can't be updated), or comparisons to siblings like 'add_collaborator' or 'update_space_role', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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