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 only states that it 'Updates an existing component folder', without explaining what 'update' entails (e.g., whether it modifies metadata, structure, or permissions), what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero 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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool definition, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by stating the core action and resource.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, parameter meanings, usage context, or expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation by an AI agent.

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%, meaning none of the 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about parameters beyond implying a 'folder_id' is needed for updating. It doesn't explain what 'name', 'parent_id', or 'space_id' do, their formats, or constraints, leaving the agent to guess based on titles alone.

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 tool 'Updates an existing component folder (component group)', which provides a clear verb ('Updates') and resource ('component folder/component group'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'update_component' or 'update_asset_folder', leaving the specific scope of what a 'component folder' is ambiguous relative to other folder types in the system.

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 an existing folder_id), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_component_folder' or 'delete_component_folder'. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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