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 tool deletes a field plugin, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., on associated data), or returns confirmation. This is a significant gap for a destructive 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 brief and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a parameter note. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the parameter section is redundant given the schema coverage, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it's well-structured and concise.

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 behavioral risks, success/failure outcomes, or usage context. For a delete operation, this leaves critical gaps in understanding how to use it safely and effectively.

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 parameter 'field_type_id' fully documented in the schema. The description repeats this information without adding meaningful context (e.g., how to obtain the ID, format details). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 field plugin by its ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_extension' or 'delete_component', which also delete resources by ID, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the field plugin ID), exclusions, or related tools like 'retrieve_field_plugins' for listing plugins or 'update_field_plugin' for modifications, leaving usage context unclear.

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