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. It states the tool deletes, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, permission requirements, side effects (e.g., breaking references), or error conditions. 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 a single, direct sentence with zero waste—it states exactly what the tool does without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion operation and front-loads the core action.

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 destructive nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address safety concerns, return values, error handling, or dependencies. For a mutation tool that permanently removes data, more context is needed to use it correctly and safely.

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 mentions 'by ID', which aligns with the single 'id' parameter in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no details about the ID format or constraints. The description adds minimal semantics (it's an ID) but doesn't explain what constitutes a valid component ID or where to obtain it, leaving important gaps.

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') and the target resource ('a component by ID'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling deletion tools like delete_component_folder, delete_asset, or delete_story, which all follow the same pattern but target 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 the component ID), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete if in use), or related tools like delete_component_folder or update_component. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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