Storyblok MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions validation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what happens on validation failure (e.g., error messages, side effects), whether it's read-only or modifies data, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior 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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 of a validation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and input methods but lacks details on behavior, error handling, and output format. While it meets the minimum for clarity, it doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured data, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 parameters. The description adds minimal value by clarifying the 'story_id' and 'story_content' as alternative inputs, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format details for 'story_content' or the role of 'space_id' (noted as 'currently unused'). Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Validates a story's content against a component schema.' It specifies the verb ('validates'), resource ('story's content'), and target ('component schema'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_story' or 'get_component', which might fetch similar data without validation, leaving room for improvement.

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 clear usage guidance by stating 'Either provide story_id (to fetch) or story_content directly,' indicating two alternative input methods. It doesn't specify when to use this tool versus other validation or fetching tools among siblings, such as 'compare_story_versions' or 'get_story', but the context is sufficient for basic usage.

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