Storybook-MCP-compatible preview metadata lookup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| token | No | A grant token from poll_access, when you cannot set the X-Compose-Preview-Token header yourself — an MCP client fixes its headers at connect time, so this is how a token approved during this session is used in it. Prefer the header where you control it. | |
| storyId | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet 'lookup' only weakly implies a non-destructive read. Nothing is said about auth requirements, token acquisition flow, caching, or error behavior, even though the schema's token parameter hints at a real access-control gate the agent needs to understand.
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?
One sentence with no waste, but this is under-specification masquerading as conciseness: the definition is far too small for a three-parameter tool with an access token. Brevity here costs the agent required context rather than saving it.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but that is the only dimension covered. With no annotations, 33% schema coverage, an ambiguous id/storyId requirement, and no usage guidance, the description leaves the agent unable to invoke this tool confidently.
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 only 33% (only token is documented), and with low coverage the description must compensate — it adds zero parameter information. Crucially, the anyOf requirement between storyId and id, the single most important invocation detail, is explained nowhere in either the description or the undocumented schema fields.
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 phrase 'preview metadata lookup' gestures at the resource but has no verb and no scope, and 'Storybook-MCP-compatible' is protocol trivia rather than purpose. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like list-all-documentation or preview-stories. It largely restates the tool name in different words.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when it is preferable to list-all-documentation or preview-stories, and no prerequisites stated. The only routing hint in the whole definition lives in a schema field (token), not in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.