multilocale

Export locale dictionary

export_locale_dictionary

Read-onlyIdempotent

Export one locale of a MultiLocale project as bounded, sorted key/value entries. Results are API-paginated with a maximum of 50 entries per call and each value is capped at 500 characters.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`skip`	No	Number of keys to skip, sorted alphabetically. Defaults to 0 and is capped at 10000.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of keys to return. Defaults to 25, capped at 50.
`project`	Yes	Project name (slug) to export
`language`	Yes	Language code to export (for example, en)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`skip`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`entries`	Yes
`hasMore`	Yes
`project`	Yes
`language`	Yes
`nextSkip`	Yes
`returnedCount`	Yes
`valuesTruncated`	Yes
`offsetCapReached`	Yes

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description only needs to add context. It discloses API pagination with a 50-entry maximum and a 500-character value cap, which are meaningful behavioral constraints beyond the structured annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 with no filler: the purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds two consequential behavioral constraints. Every clause contributes actionable information.

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 read-only export tool with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description is complete. It states the scope, sorted/bounded nature, pagination behavior, and value size limit, so an agent can call it correctly without missing key constraints.

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 description coverage is 100%; every parameter (project, language, skip, limit) already has a clear schema description including defaults and bounds. The tool description reinforces the pagination cap but adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description uses a clear verb and resource: 'Export one locale of a MultiLocale project as bounded, sorted key/value entries.' It specifies the scope (one locale) and output shape (key/value), but it never contrasts itself with similar siblings like list_phrases or search_phrases, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as list_phrases or search_phrases. The description states what it does but no conditions, exclusions, or hints for routing an agent to a sibling.

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?