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 via the Management API, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with 16 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity (16 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, return values, or behavioral constraints. For a tool that modifies a core resource like a space, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 16 parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'space_id' is required (which is already in the schema's required array). 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 Storyblok space'), and specifies the API context ('via the Management API'). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'create_space' by mentioning 'existing', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_story' or 'update_asset' beyond the resource name.

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 the space_id), when not to use it, or how it differs from other update operations in the sibling list (like 'update_story' or 'update_space_role').

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