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 this is an update operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., impact on existing data using the plugin), or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero 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 structured with a brief purpose statement followed by an 'Args' list, but the 'Args' section is redundant given the schema's 100% coverage. The purpose statement is clear but could be more front-loaded with critical details. It's concise but not optimally efficient due to the duplication.

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?

For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral transparency, usage guidelines, and output details, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly and what to expect in return.

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 already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing parameters in the 'Args' section, but it doesn't provide additional context like examples, constraints, or relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'body' and 'compiled_body' interact). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Updates') and resource ('an existing field plugin'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling 'update_' tools like 'update_extension' or 'update_component', which likely have similar update patterns but for different resources.

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 to retrieve a field plugin first), nor does it compare with sibling tools like 'create_field_plugin' or 'delete_field_plugin' for lifecycle management.

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