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 this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't specify if it's irreversible, requires permissions, or has side effects (e.g., impacting associated data). The description lacks details on error handling, confirmation steps, or response format, leaving behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Deletes an existing extension') and efficiently adds context details. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise.

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 deletion tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, irreversibility, error cases, and parameter specifics (especially 'extension_id'). Given the complexity of a destructive operation, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'context (organization or partner)', which clarifies one parameter's purpose, but doesn't explain 'extension_id' (e.g., what it refers to, format, or how to obtain it). With 2 parameters and low coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Deletes') and resource ('an existing extension'), making the purpose unambiguous. It specifies the context ('organization or partner'), which adds clarity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_webhook' or 'delete_field_plugin', which also delete resources but different types.

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 mentions the context parameter ('organization or partner'), which provides some usage context, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_extension' vs. 'update_extension' or other deletion tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools listed.

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