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. While 'Updates' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't disclose important traits: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to existing workflow stages not mentioned, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero 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 that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and follows the principle of front-loading the most important information (the action and target).

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects (permissions, side effects), provide usage guidance, or explain what the tool returns. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking.

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 fully documents all three parameters (workflow_id, name, content_types). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain format expectations, constraints, or relationships between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the 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 workflow in a Storyblok space via the Management API'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling update tools like update_story or update_workflow_stage, which would require mentioning what specifically gets updated about workflows.

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 (like needing an existing workflow ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like create_workflow or duplicate_workflow. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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