Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Designers

by com.allthepossibles
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Localisation readiness

localisation_readiness
Read-only

Check source strings for translation readiness. Give strings (one per line, optionally 'key = text' and a trailing '[max 20]' limit), optionally languages, maxChars (a limit for every string) and expansion (your own factors, e.g. 'de=1.3, fr=1.25'; if omitted a default planning table of our own rough factors is used and named in the output). Projects length per language (short strings grow more), flags overflow against limits, and flags: fragments glued together, unnamed multiple placeholders, '(s)' plurals and counted nouns without a plural rule, 'a/an' before a placeholder, hard-coded dates, times, ordinals, currency and number separators, gendered pairs, left/right words, idioms, Latin abbreviations, markup, emoji and all-capital text. Pattern checks on English; character counts are not pixel widths.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "strings": "<strings>"
    },
    "name": "localisation_readiness"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stringsYesSource strings, one per line
maxCharsNoCharacter limit applied to every string
expansionNoExpansion factors by language, e.g. 'de=1.3, fr=1.25' or {de: 1.3}
languagesNoLanguage codes to project, default all in the table

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/not-destructive, yet the description still adds real behaviour: an omitted `expansion` falls back to a built-in planning table that is named in the output, and 'Pattern checks on English; character counts are not pixel widths' pre-empts a false expectation about accuracy. It stops short of describing the result shape (per-language overflow report, severity) in any detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and input format are front-loaded, followed by behaviour and caveats in a sensible order. The flag enumeration is a long comma-spliced run-on that could be trimmed or grouped, but each item conveys a distinct check an agent may need to know about.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does say it projects lengths, flags overflow against limits, flags a long list of patterns, and names the expansion table used. It still doesn't say how results are grouped or ranked (per language? per string? severity?), which is the main residual gap for a tool this complex.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine syntax the schema's one-liners omit: 'key = text' lines, a trailing '[max 20]' per-string limit, and the 'de=1.3, fr=1.25' form for `expansion` plus its default behaviour. `maxChars` and `languages` semantics are still largely left to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check source strings for translation readiness') and then enumerates exactly what it inspects, so an agent knows this is a source-string lint rather than a rendering test. It never names the obvious neighbours (stress_test_localisation, plan_text_expansion, check_rtl_readiness), so differentiation is inferred from the check list rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'source strings' and the input syntax hints, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or 'use X instead' routing despite several overlapping siblings. An agent must guess that this belongs before localisation handoff and that it is not a substitute for plan_text_expansion.

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

All Designers toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources