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 discloses the destructive nature ('Deletes'), but lacks critical behavioral details: whether deletions are permanent or reversible, required authentication, rate limits, error handling for invalid IDs, or confirmation prompts. For a destructive bulk operation, 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. It front-loads the core action and resource, and every word ('multiple assets', 'numeric IDs', 'Storyblok Management API') adds relevant context without redundancy.

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 bulk operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral transparency (e.g., irreversibility, permissions), usage guidelines, and output details. While concise, it doesn't compensate for the missing structured data, leaving the agent under-informed about risks and proper use.

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 'ids' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'numeric IDs', which is implied by the schema's type 'number'. It doesn't provide additional context like ID format, range constraints, or batch size recommendations. Baseline 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 ('multiple assets'), specifying they are identified by 'numeric IDs' and using the 'Storyblok Management API'. It's specific but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_asset' (singular) or 'bulk_delete_stories', though the 'multiple assets' phrasing implies bulk operation.

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., permissions), compare with 'delete_asset' for single deletions, or advise on batch size limits. The description only states what it does, not when or why to choose it.

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