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 the tool retrieves by ID, implying a read-only operation, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), response format, authentication requirements, or rate limits. 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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for 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 tool's simplicity (one parameter) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like error handling or response details, and while it addresses the parameter, it lacks depth. For a retrieval tool with no structured support, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 description mentions the parameter 'folder_id' and its purpose ('by its ID'), which adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's 0% coverage. However, it does not elaborate on the ID format, constraints, or examples, providing only basic context. With one parameter and low schema coverage, this is adequate but minimal.

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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('a single component folder (component group)'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_component_folders' (which likely retrieves multiple folders) or 'get_component' (which retrieves a component, not a folder), leaving room for ambiguity in 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid folder ID), compare it to similar tools like 'fetch_component_folders', or specify use cases, leaving the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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