multilocale

Find duplicate default-locale copy

find_duplicate_phrase_values

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find keys in a bounded scan of one MultiLocale project whose default-locale translations have the same value. The result explicitly reports when the scan or output preview is truncated.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project`	Yes	Project id or name whose default-locale copy should be checked
`scanLimit`	No	Maximum default-locale phrases to scan. Defaults to 1000, capped at 2000.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`project`	Yes
`scanLimit`	Yes
`duplicates`	Yes
`defaultLocale`	Yes
`scanTruncated`	Yes
`duplicateCount`	Yes
`phrasesScanned`	Yes
`duplicatesTruncated`	Yes

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful non-obvious context: the scan is bounded, and the result explicitly reports truncation of either the scan or the output preview. This helps the agent anticipate partial results.

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 concise sentences: the first states the tool's purpose and scope, the second adds an important truncation behavior. There is no filler or repetition of schema or annotation details.

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?

The description is sufficiently complete for a read-only discovery tool with an output schema and 100% parameter schema coverage. It covers scope, boundedness, and truncation behavior; the output schema handles return-value details.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description's 'bounded scan' phrasing loosely aligns with scanLimit, but it does not add material detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Find keys'), a precise resource ('one MultiLocale project'), and the exact condition ('default-locale translations have the same value'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like find_missing_translations and search_phrases.

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?

The description implies usage context through 'bounded scan of one MultiLocale project' and 'default-locale copy,' but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling is named as a competing option.

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?