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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Gets a specific component by ID,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify critical aspects like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), rate limits, or the format of the returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words: 'Gets a specific component by ID.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, achieving optimal 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 read operation with one parameter), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'component' entails, how results are returned, or behavioral traits like error cases. For a tool in a server with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure correct usage without relying on external knowledge.

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?

The input schema has one parameter ('id') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no details about the parameter. The description adds minimal semantics by implying the 'id' is used to retrieve a component, but it doesn't specify the ID format (e.g., numeric, UUID), source, or constraints. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately, leaving the parameter poorly documented.

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 'Gets a specific component by ID' clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('component'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'component' is in this context (e.g., UI component, data component) and doesn't distinguish it from similar sibling tools like 'fetch_components' (which likely lists multiple components) or 'retrieve_single_component_version' (which might get versioned components). This makes it vague compared to alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid component ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'fetch_components' (for listing) or 'get_component_usage' (for usage data). Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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