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 'non-paginated' and 'optional filtering', which are useful behavioral traits, but fails to disclose critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens on errors. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 is front-loaded with the core action. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 (a retrieval tool with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or parameter usage, leaving the agent under-informed for effective tool invocation.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description only vaguely mentions 'optional filtering' without explaining the two parameters ('search' and 'with_parent'), their purposes, formats, or how they interact. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('component folders'), which clarifies the basic action. However, it lacks specificity about what 'component folders' are in this context and doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'retrieve_component_versions' or 'fetch_components', making it somewhat vague.

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 mentions 'optional filtering' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fetch_components' or 'retrieve_single_component_folder'. It doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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