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 this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't specify if the deletion is permanent, reversible, or has side effects (e.g., impact on associated assets or components). It also lacks details on permissions, error handling, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a mutation 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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action and context without unnecessary elaboration, which is ideal for clarity in tool selection.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical behavioral details like permanence of deletion, authorization requirements, error conditions, and what happens post-deletion. Given the complexity of deletion operations in a content management system, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'internal_tag_id' clearly documented as 'Numeric ID of the internal tag to delete'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('an internal tag (asset/component) in a specified Storyblok space'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_tag' or 'delete_component', which could cause confusion about what exactly an 'internal tag' is versus other deletable entities.

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. The description mentions 'in a specified Storyblok space', but this is inherent to the context and doesn't help differentiate it from other deletion tools in the sibling list, such as 'delete_tag' or 'delete_component'. There's no mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or specific scenarios for its use.

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