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 states 'Updates an existing component' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, side effects, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with 14 parameters.

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 gets straight to the point. It's front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary words. However, it's overly concise given the tool's complexity, bordering on under-specification.

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 (14 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic intent.

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 only parameter names and types without meaning. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'all supported fields', but doesn't explain what those fields are, their purposes, or constraints. For 14 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 ('Updates') and resource ('an existing component'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'all supported fields' means and doesn't distinguish this tool from other update_* tools in the sibling list (like update_story, update_asset, etc.). It lacks specificity about the component's nature or domain.

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 the component ID), compare it to create_component or delete_component, or specify any context for usage. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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