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 server-side operations but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, how pagination works (implied by 'per_page' but not explained), or what the return format looks like. The description is too vague for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('fetches components') and lists key features without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's scope, making it optimally concise.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return type, error conditions, or behavioral constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. For a fetch operation with multiple filters and no structured output, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 all 7 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by hinting at filtering, sorting, and group inclusion, but doesn't provide additional context like parameter interactions or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 action ('fetches components') and key capabilities ('with server-side filters, sorting, and option to include groups'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_component' (singular) and 'fetch_component_folders' by focusing on components with filtering options, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar retrieval tools.

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 like 'get_component' (for single component) or 'fetch_component_folders' (for folders). It mentions capabilities but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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