Storyblok MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a deletion operation via the Storyblok Management API, implying it's destructive and requires API access. However, it doesn't mention whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response looks like. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet-point parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place, though the bullet points could be integrated more smoothly. It's appropriately sized for a simple 2-parameter tool.

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?

For a destructive deletion tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks critical context about behavioral traits (permanence, permissions), usage guidelines, and expected outcomes. The parameter explanations help, but overall completeness is limited given the tool's potential impact.

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 description explicitly lists both parameters (discussion_id and comment_id) with brief explanations ('Numeric ID of the discussion', 'Numeric ID of the comment'), adding clear meaning beyond the schema's basic type definitions. With 0% schema description coverage, this fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions, though it doesn't provide format examples or validation rules.

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 ('Deletes a comment') and resource ('from a discussion via the Storyblok Management API'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from other deletion tools like delete_story or delete_asset, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing specific permissions), what happens after deletion, or how this differs from similar tools like delete_story or delete_comment's sibling create_comment. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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