Storyblok MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a mutating operation (implied by 'creates' but not confirmed), what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. The description provides zero behavioral context 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 extremely concise - just one sentence with no wasted words. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While front-loaded, it lacks the substance needed for a higher score.

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 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what gets created, what the parameters mean, what the tool returns, or any behavioral characteristics. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters (name, parent_id), the description provides no information about what these parameters mean, their format constraints, or how they affect the operation. The schema shows 'name' is required and 'parent_id' is optional with a default of null, but the description doesn't explain what a component folder name should be or what parent_id refers to.

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 'Creates a new component folder' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'create_component_folder' without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_asset_folder' or 'create_space', nor does it clarify what a 'component folder' is in this context beyond the obvious.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or how it differs from similar creation tools in the sibling list like 'create_asset_folder' or 'create_space'.

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