multilocale

Find missing translations

find_missing_translations

Read-onlyIdempotent

Report missing keys in a bounded scan of one locale or up to 10 configured locales, compared with the project default locale. The result explicitly reports partial locale or phrase scans and never creates translations.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project`	Yes	Project id or name whose translation coverage should be checked
`language`	No	Locale code to check. Omit to report coverage for every configured locale.
`scanLimit`	No	Maximum phrases to scan per locale. Defaults to 1000, capped at 2000.
`localeLimit`	No	Maximum configured locales to check when language is omitted. Defaults to 10.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`locales`	Yes
`project`	Yes
`scanLimit`	Yes
`defaultLocale`	Yes
`localesTruncated`	Yes
`sourceScanTruncated`	Yes
`sourcePhrasesScanned`	Yes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, but the description adds valuable behavior: scans are bounded, partial scans are explicitly reported, and it never creates translations. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps an agent trust the tool's side-effect profile.

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 first sentence front-loads the core purpose and scope; the second adds the critical boundary conditions about partial reports and non-mutation. Every clause earns its place.

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 reporting tool with a rich output schema and annotations covering idempotence and safety, the description covers scope, limits, and result semantics. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual meaning by tying 'one locale or up to 10 configured locales' to language and localeLimit, and 'bounded scan' to scanLimit, which helps an agent reason about parameter behavior beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific action ('Report missing keys') and the resource scope ('bounded scan of one locale or up to 10 configured locales'), and it clarifies the comparison basis ('project default locale'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like find_duplicate_phrase_values or export_locale_dictionary by focusing on missing keys rather than duplicates or exports.

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 clearly establishes when this tool is useful: when you need missing translation keys relative to the default locale. It stops short of naming alternative tools or giving explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer the intended use.

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?