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. While 'Updates' implies a mutation, it doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic intent.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage context, and what the tool returns. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient.

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 clear descriptions for all parameters (folder_id, name, parent_id, space_id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 clearly indicates the verb (update) and resource (component folder/group). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_asset_folder' or 'update_component', making it somewhat vague about what specifically distinguishes this folder update operation from other update operations 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), when not to use it, or what other tools might be relevant for similar operations (like 'create_component_folder' for creation or 'delete_component_folder' for deletion).

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