Storyblok MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'non-paginated' which is a useful behavioral trait not in the schema, but fails to disclose other critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or the structure of the returned data. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 waste. It front-loads the core action ('Retrieves all component folders') and adds key qualifiers ('non-paginated', 'with optional filtering') concisely. Every word earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a simple retrieval tool. It covers the basic purpose and hints at behavior ('non-paginated'), but lacks details on return format, error handling, or usage context. For a tool with 2 parameters and full schema coverage, it meets the minimum but doesn't compensate for the missing output schema or annotations.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('search' and 'with_parent'). The description adds marginal value by noting 'optional filtering' which aligns with the schema, but provides no additional semantics like examples of search syntax, what 'parent folder ID' refers to, or how filters combine. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('all component folders'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'retrieve_single_component_folder' by specifying 'all' folders, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'fetch_components' or 'fetch_asset_folder' beyond the resource type.

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 implies usage for retrieving folders with optional filtering, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'retrieve_single_component_folder' for a specific folder or other fetch tools for different resources. The optional filtering is mentioned, but no context on typical use cases or prerequisites is given.

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