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 this is a deletion operation via the Storyblok Management API, implying it's destructive, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive tool 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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place by specifying the operation, target, and API context.

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 incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (permanence, permissions), usage guidance, and any information about return values or error conditions. The schema handles the parameter well, but the description doesn't compensate for missing safety and operational details.

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 'story_scheduling_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or where to find the ID. With high schema coverage, 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 target resource ('a story schedule entry'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_story' or 'delete_story_schedule' (which appears to be a duplicate name in the sibling list), missing an opportunity for clearer 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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing schedule), exclusions, or comparison with related tools like 'delete_story' or 'bulk_delete_stories'. 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.