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 for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Updates an existing component' which implies a mutation operation, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this requires specific permissions, if updates are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. full updates), rate limits, or error handling. For a mutation tool with 14 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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: 'Updates an existing component with all supported fields.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clarifying scope ('all supported fields').

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 (14 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'component' is, the update behavior (partial/full, side effects), authentication needs, or return values. For a tool with this many parameters and potential impact, the description should provide more context to guide safe and 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%, with all 14 parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'id' as 'ID of the component to update', 'name' as 'New technical name'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond stating 'with all supported fields', which merely echoes the schema's completeness. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all 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 'Updates an existing component with all supported fields' clearly states the verb ('Updates') and resource ('an existing component'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'component' is in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_story' or 'update_asset', which follow similar patterns but for different resources.

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 component ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_component' or 'delete_component'. 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.