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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions the 'Management API' context, but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether this is a mutation (implied but not stated), permission requirements, rate limits, idempotency, or what happens on success/failure. For a write operation with 7 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 with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Updates an existing task') and provides necessary context ('in a specified Storyblok space using the Management API'). Every element 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?

For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'updating' entails (partial vs. full updates), return values, error conditions, or system behavior. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool confidently beyond basic parameter passing.

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 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'task_id' is required (via 'existing task'). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage, but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter interactions or constraints.

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 task in a specified Storyblok space'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_task' by specifying 'existing', but doesn't differentiate from other update tools (e.g., 'update_story', 'update_webhook') 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a task ID), exclusions, or compare with similar tools like 'bulk_update_stories' or 'update_workflow'. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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