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 mentions 'Supports all documented fields including publishing,' which hints at capabilities, but fails to disclose critical traits: whether this is a destructive mutation, what permissions are required, how conflicts are handled (implied by force_update parameter but not explained), rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a complex mutation tool with 22 parameters, this is inadequate.

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 purpose. However, for a tool with 22 parameters and no annotations, it might be too concise—additional behavioral context would improve completeness without sacrificing brevity.

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 (22 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or return values. The mention of 'publishing' is useful but insufficient for a tool that modifies critical content in a CMS.

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 22 parameters. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying that 'all documented fields' are supported, which doesn't provide additional meaning over the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all 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 verb ('Updates') and resource ('an existing Storyblok story by ID'), making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_story' by specifying it updates existing stories, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'bulk_update_stories' or 'update_story_schedule'.

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 story_id), when to use bulk_update_stories for multiple updates, or when to use publish_story versus the publish parameter. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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