multilocale

Share key with projects

share_phrase

DestructiveIdempotent

Attach every locale translation for one key in a source project to one or more target projects. The underlying phrase rows become shared, so future edits affect every attached project.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`key`	Yes	Exact key to share across every locale
`project`	Yes	Source project id or name that already contains the key
`targetProjects`	Yes	One or more target project ids or names to attach to the key

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`key`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`project`	Yes
`targetProjects`	Yes
`translationCount`	Yes

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already signal readOnly=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that underlying phrase rows become shared and future edits affect every attached project, but it does not disclose potential destructive edge cases such as what happens if a target project already has an existing phrase with the same key or whether sharing is reversible.

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?

The description is two sentences, tight and front-loaded with the action, then the key consequence. No filler or repetition of obvious schema 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?

Given the output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description sufficiently explains what the operation does and its main consequence. It is slightly incomplete regarding destructive edge cases, but annotations already flag that dimension.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description reinforces that the key must already exist in the source project and that targetProjects receive attachments, but it adds no new behavioral detail beyond the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('attach') and names the exact resource and scope: every locale translation for one key in a source project, shared to one or more target projects. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_phrase or update_phrase.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a key already exists in a source project and its translations should be attached to other projects. It also explains the consequence ('future edits affect every attached project'), which makes the use case obvious, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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?