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 (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate - it should describe what 'updates' entails beyond the basic action.

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 gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema coverage. However, it could be slightly more structured by front-loading the most critical information about the update operation's scope.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens when the tool executes successfully or fails, what permissions are needed, or how partial updates work. The agent must infer too much from the basic 'updates' statement and schema alone.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters, format requirements, or which fields are optional versus required beyond preset_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 resource ('an existing preset in a Storyblok space'), and specifies the API used ('via the Management API'). It distinguishes from 'create_preset' by indicating it updates existing presets rather than creating new ones. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_story' or 'update_component' beyond the resource type.

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 a preset_id), when not to use it, or what happens if the preset doesn't exist. With many sibling tools including 'create_preset' and 'delete_preset', the lack of usage context is a significant gap.

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