Storyblok MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool deletes a comment, implying a destructive mutation, but fails to mention critical details like required permissions, whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, error conditions, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose in the first sentence. The bullet points for parameters are clear but redundant with the schema. It could be more efficient by omitting the parameter details since they are fully covered in the schema.

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 (deletion), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like permissions, reversibility, or error handling, which are crucial for a mutation tool. The parameter information is redundant with the schema, failing to compensate for these gaps.

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 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description repeats the parameter explanations verbatim from the schema ('Numeric ID of the discussion' and 'Numeric ID of the comment'), adding no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides.

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 comment from a discussion'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling deletion tools like 'delete_story' or 'delete_discussion', which would require mentioning it's specifically for comments within discussions.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing specific permissions or existing discussions/comments) or comparisons with other deletion tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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