Storybook-MCP-compatible alias that lists every preview as a story.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals only that this is an alias, disclosing nothing about ordering, completeness, auth beyond the schema, or how 'every preview' is scoped. The alias hint is the only behavioral signal.
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?
A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the identifying clause. It wastes nothing, though it is arguably too terse for the routing ambiguity it leaves unresolved.
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 needn't be explained, but for a tool whose whole value is disambiguating an 'alias' from its siblings, the description omits what a 'story' is, ordering, and why an agent would choose it. It leaves the core routing question unanswered.
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% and the single token parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its relationship to poll_access and the X-Compose-Preview-Token header. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
It states a verb+resource ('lists every preview as a story') but frames itself as an 'alias' without naming what it aliases, leaving the relationship to sibling catalog_list_previews and preview-stories ambiguous. An agent can guess it enumerates everything, but cannot confidently distinguish it from those siblings.
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 'Storybook-MCP-compatible' phrasing faintly implies the audience (clients expecting Storybook's MCP surface), but there is no when-to-use, when-not, or explicit alternative. It never says whether to prefer this over catalog_list_previews or preview-stories.
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.