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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Deletes') but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is destructive (implied but not explicit), permission requirements, error handling (e.g., if the tag doesn't exist), or what happens upon success (e.g., confirmation message). This leaves significant 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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (a destructive mutation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, usage context, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, with one parameter 'id' undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about this parameter, such as what 'id' refers to (e.g., tag ID from Storyblok), where to obtain it, or format requirements. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 tag from Storyblok'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_internal_tag' or 'update_tag', which would require specifying this is for standard tags versus internal tags or other tag operations.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the tag ID from 'retrieve_multiple_tags'), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete tags in use), or related tools like 'create_tag' or 'update_tag' for other tag operations.

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