multilocale

Delete key and all translations

delete_phrase

Destructive

Permanently delete every locale translation for one key in a project. If a phrase is shared with other projects, this deletes the shared row for those projects too, rather than only detaching the project.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`key`	Yes	Exact key whose complete locale group should be deleted
`project`	Yes	Project id or name that contains the key to delete

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`key`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`project`	Yes
`sharedProjects`	Yes
`deletedTranslationCount`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable nuance beyond this: the deletion is permanent, applies to every locale translation, and removes the shared row for other projects rather than merely detaching the project. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, and the shared-row caveat is placed second. No filler or repetition.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple two-parameter destructive tool with a complete schema, clear annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the permanent scope and the shared-phrase edge case. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Input schema covers both required parameters with clear descriptions at 100% coverage, so the description carries little parameter burden. It reinforces that 'key' and 'project' identify the complete locale group, but adds no new parameter-level meaning.

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?

Description begins with a specific verb and object: 'Permanently delete every locale translation for one key in a project.' It also clarifies the scope and permanence, and the distinction from siblings like get_phrase, update_phrase, or share_phrase is clear even without naming them.

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?

The description makes the use case clear: use when a key and all its translations should be removed, including shared rows. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'do not use this to edit translations,' but the permanent destructive scope is unmistakable.

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

All multilocale tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The tool set separates resources (project, phrase, locale, team member) with clear action prefixes. Some read tools overlap: get_project vs show_project_overview, and list_phrases vs search_phrases, but descriptions clarify exact scope and parameters. No two tools appear to perform the same operation.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 17 tools follow a consistent lowercase_snake_case verb_noun pattern, e.g. add_project, list_phrases, update_phrase, export_locale_dictionary. There are no mixed conventions, vague verbs, or inconsistent abbreviation styles. This is exemplary.

Tool Count3/5

At 17 tools, the set is on the heavy side for a localization server and above the typical 3-15 well-scoped range. While each tool has a distinct purpose, show_project_overview and the find_* diagnostics add surface area and could be trimmed without losing core functionality. Still, the count is not excessive for the broad domain.

Completeness3/5

Phrases have full CRUD plus search/share, and projects have create/read/update/list, but delete_project is absent, leaving an obvious lifecycle gap. Team member operations are list-only, and locale removal is only possible indirectly via update_project. Core translation workflows work, but these gaps will block some common tasks.

Resources

Need Help?