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 mentions 'paginated versions', hinting at pagination behavior, but fails to detail critical aspects such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields). For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 is appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action ('retrieves paginated versions of a component'). Every word 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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter semantics, behavioral traits, and output format. While it states the purpose concisely, it does not compensate for the missing structured data, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand and correctly invoke the tool.

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 does not add any meaning beyond what the schema's property names imply (e.g., 'component_id', 'page', 'per_page'). It fails to explain what these parameters do, their constraints, or examples of usage, leaving all three parameters inadequately 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 states the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('paginated versions of a component'), which clarifies the basic action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_single_component_version' or 'get_component_usage', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'paginated versions' but does not specify scenarios (e.g., for listing all versions vs. fetching a single one) or reference sibling tools like 'retrieve_single_component_version'. Usage is implied through the term 'paginated' but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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