Storyblok MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Deletes' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent/reversible, permission requirements, side effects (e.g., on related assets), or error handling. This is a significant gap for a destructive 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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks behavioral context (permanence, permissions), parameter details (ID format), and output expectations. Given the complexity and risk of deletion, more completeness is needed to guide the agent 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 parameter details. The description adds minimal semantic context (it's an ID parameter) but doesn't specify format (e.g., string type, length) or validation rules, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance.

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 resource ('a story by ID'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'bulk_delete_stories' or 'delete_asset', which would require mentioning it's for single stories only.

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 like 'bulk_delete_stories' or 'delete_story_schedule', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing story ID) or exclusions. It's a basic statement with no contextual usage information.

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