Storyblok MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Deletes' clearly indicates a destructive mutation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, what happens to associated data, or what the response looks like. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It follows a clear subject-verb-object structure. While perfectly concise, it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from context, but this is a minor consideration.

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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address the mutation's consequences, error conditions, authentication requirements, or what happens after deletion. Given the complexity of a destructive operation and the lack of structured safety information, the description should provide more behavioral context to be truly complete.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'datasource_entry_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (it doesn't explain format, constraints, or examples). According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 target resource ('a datasource entry from a specified Storyblok space'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'delete_datasource' by specifying 'entry' level deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'bulk_delete_stories' or other deletion tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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_datasource'. It mentions the Management API context but doesn't specify prerequisites, permissions needed, or scenarios where this is the appropriate deletion method. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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