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 mentions the tool 'finds stories' but doesn't specify if it's a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it returns paginated results, or the format of the output. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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: 'Finds stories where a component is used in content (draft & published).' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential scope details without any wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (a search operation with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and scope but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. It's complete enough for basic understanding but leaves gaps in practical application.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'component_name' documented as 'Name of the component to search for.' The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or search behavior. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Finds stories where a component is used in content (draft & published).' It specifies the verb ('finds'), resource ('stories'), and scope ('draft & published'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_stories' or 'get_story', which might also retrieve story data but with different criteria.

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, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'fetch_stories' (which might list stories without component filtering) or 'get_story' (which retrieves a single story). Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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