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 the action ('Deletes') but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to dependent resources, or error conditions. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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 waste—'Deletes a component by ID.' It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple operation, earning full marks for conciseness.

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, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address safety, permissions, or return values, leaving gaps for an AI agent to operate safely. For a deletion tool with high stakes, more context is needed despite the simple parameter schema.

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%, with the single parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema as 'ID of the component to delete'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing instructions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 ('a component'), specifying it's done 'by ID'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_component_folder' by focusing on individual components, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools like 'delete_asset' or 'delete_story' beyond the resource type.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the component ID from 'fetch_components' or 'get_component'), consequences of deletion, or when to choose bulk deletion ('bulk_delete_stories') for multiple items. The description is purely functional without contextual advice.

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