get_projectFetch a single MultiLocale project by id or name. Returns bounded Markdown and structured project metadata, including name, configured locales, and timestamps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectIdOrName | Yes | Project id or project name (slug) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| project | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns 'bounded Markdown' and 'structured project metadata' including name, locales, and timestamps. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, with the core action and resource in the first sentence and valuable output detail in the second. No filler or redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read-only getter with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is complete. It clarifies the lookup scope, the output type, and key metadata fields. The existence of the output schema means return values need not be exhaustively listed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with projectIdOrName already described as 'Project id or project name (slug)'. The description merely restates 'by id or name' without adding syntax, format, or disambiguation details, so it adds no value beyond the schema baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('a single MultiLocale project'), and the lookup key ('by id or name'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_projects and search_phrases by emphasizing it retrieves one project with metadata, not a collection or search result.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving a single project by identifier, which is a clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as list_projects or search_phrases, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.