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 the scope (draft & published stories) but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), performance implications, or error handling. The description is too sparse for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a useful detail (draft & published). Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 search tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, return values, behavioral constraints, and differentiation from siblings. For a tool that likely returns multiple stories, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 0% description coverage, with one parameter 'component_name' undocumented. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what 'component_name' refers to (e.g., a specific identifier, name pattern), its format, or examples. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Finds stories') and resource ('where a component is used in content'), specifying both draft and published states. It distinguishes from generic story-fetching tools by focusing on component usage, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'fetch_stories' or 'get_story' that might also retrieve stories.

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 minimal guidance, implying usage when searching for component references in stories. However, it doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives like 'fetch_stories' (which might have filtering capabilities) or 'get_story' (for single stories), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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