Retrieve Storybook component configuration, including argTypes and style presets with args, to set up controls for a specified component.
Storybook Controls config per component: argTypes (variant, size, …) and stylePresets (Default, Secondary, …) with args.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| component | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It discloses the data returned (argTypes and stylePresets), which is useful, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or error behavior. Minimal but not misleading.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the core purpose and key return fields. No filler words or redundant phrasing.
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?
The description gives a high-level overview of the output but lacks details on output structure (e.g., exact shape of argTypes or stylePresets), parameter formatting, or potential error conditions. Given there is no output schema, the description should be more explicit to fully prepare an agent.
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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explicitly define the 'component' parameter beyond implying it is the component identifier. The phrase 'per component' offers a hint, but there is no detail on format, allowed values, or how to reference a component. This leaves the parameter under-specified.
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 retrieves Storybook Controls configuration for a component, specifying exactly what is returned (argTypes and stylePresets with args). It is specific and distinct from siblings like get_component (which likely returns component metadata) and get_story (which returns story content).
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives. The description implies it is for Controls configuration, but does not state when to prefer this over get_component or get_story. It is not misleading, but leaves selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.