Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Designers

by com.allthepossibles
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Localisation stress test

stress_test_localisation
Read-only

Stress-test UI strings for translation. Give strings (one per line, optionally 'text | maxChars' or 'label | text | maxChars', or a JSON array of {text, maxChars, label}), optional locales (default de, fr, es, fi, ru, ja, ar, zh) and optional defaultMaxChars. Applies the published IBM translation expansion guidance by string length (up to 10 chars about +200 to 300%, 11 to 20 about +80%, 21 to 30 about +60%, 31 to 50 about +40%, 51 to 70 and over 70 about +30%), adjusted per locale (CJK contracts to about half, German and Finnish run longer than French). Predicts expanded length, flags strings that overflow their limit, generates a pseudo-localised version, and flags concatenated fragments, variables that need ordering freedom, hard-coded dates, numbers, currency and plurals, text-in-image risks, and right-to-left mirroring notes. Estimates from published ratios, not translations.

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": "stress_test_localisation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
localesNoLocale codes to test, comma separated or an array. Default: de, fr, es, fi, ru, ja, ar, zh
stringsYesUI strings, one per line ('Save | 8' sets a 8-char limit; 'label | text | 24' also sets a label), or a JSON array of strings or {text, maxChars, label}
defaultMaxCharsNoCharacter limit applied to strings that do not have their own

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this read-only and non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it reveals the exact expansion model (IBM length bands) and per-locale adjustments, the full list of issue classes flagged, and the crucial caveat 'Estimates from published ratios, not translations.' That last sentence sets correct expectations about output reliability, which no structured field conveys.

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?

The action and input grammar are front-loaded in the first two sentences, with the model rationale after. The parenthetical ratio table is long and reads as a run-on, but it is substantive justification rather than filler, so it earns its place.

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 usefully enumerates what the report contains (predicted length, overflow flags, pseudo-localised version, RTL notes). It stops short of describing result structure or grouping (per-string vs per-locale), which an agent would still have to infer.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions already document the pipe-delimited format, array forms, and defaults, so the description's restatement adds little. It does confirm the default locale list and that defaultMaxChars only applies to strings without their own limit, but that is marginal. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose5/5

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

'Stress-test UI strings for translation' is a specific verb+resource that no sibling (review_ui_copy, lint_disclosure_copy, audit_form) covers, so an agent can route here without opening a schema. The scope is further pinned down by naming the exact checks it performs (overflow, expansion, pseudo-localisation, RTL notes).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly frames the triggering scenario and spells out accepted input forms (one-per-line, pipe-delimited with maxChars/label, or JSON array), plus the default locale set when none are given. It never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use it, which keeps it below a 5.

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