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 tool deletes a collaborator, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't mention critical aspects like whether this action is reversible, what permissions are needed, or how it affects the collaborator's access. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and risks.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose and parameter options without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes, but overall it's concise and to the point.

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 as a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual elements like error handling, return values, or the implications of deletion (e.g., whether it's permanent or affects other data), leaving the agent with insufficient information for safe and effective use.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (collaborator_id and sso_id) with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value by noting the alternative identification methods ('by collaborator_id or sso_id'), but this is largely redundant with the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 resource ('a collaborator from a specified Storyblok space'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_space_role' or 'delete_access_token' which also remove entities from Storyblok spaces, though the specific resource type is distinct.

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, such as whether it's for removing collaborators after they leave a project or for access management. It also lacks prerequisites like required permissions or context about the space, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic operation.

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