main

by dev.lingo

get_project_context

Captures the user's project architecture to inform i18n implementation strategy.

When to Use

Called during i18n_checklist Step 1.

The checklist tool will tell you when to call this. If you're implementing i18n:

Call i18n_checklist(step_number=1, done=false) FIRST
The checklist will instruct you to call THIS tool
Then use the results for subsequent steps

Do NOT call this before calling the checklist tool

Why This Matters

Frameworks handle i18n through completely different mechanisms. The same outcome (locale-aware routing) requires different code for Next.js vs TanStack Start vs React Router. Without accurate detection, you'll implement patterns that don't work.

How to Use

Examine the user's project files (package.json, directories, config files)
Identify framework markers and version
Construct a detectionResults object matching the schema
Call this tool with your findings
Store the returned framework identifier for get_framework_docs calls

The schema requires:

framework: Exact variant (nextjs-app-router, nextjs-pages-router, tanstack-start, react-router)
majorVersion: Specific version number (13-16 for Next.js, 1 for TanStack Start, 7 for React Router)
sourceDirectory, hasTypeScript, packageManager
Any detected locale configuration
Any detected i18n library (currently only react-intl supported)

What You Get

Returns the framework identifier needed for documentation fetching. The 'framework' field in the response is the exact string you'll use with get_framework_docs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`context`	Yes	Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): "Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization."
`detectionResults`	Yes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool expects a pre-constructed detectionResults object, examines project files, and returns the framework identifier. It also notes the limitation that 'currently only react-intl supported.' It does not mention side effects, but this is a read-only analysis tool, so the behavior is adequately transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than ideal but well-structured with clear headers and bullet points. Every section (When to Use, Why, How) serves a purpose, though the 'The schema requires' section partially repeats schema details. Front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complex polymorphic schema and lack of output schema and annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the workflow order, why it matters, how to construct the input, and what to do with the returned framework identifier. The note about supported i18n library adds important limitation context.

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?

The schema has descriptions for only 50% of parameters (context has a detailed description, detectionResults does not). The tool description compensates by thoroughly explaining detectionResults, including required fields, enum meanings ('Exact variant'), version ranges, and the i18n library limitation. This adds substantial semantics 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Captures the user's project architecture to inform i18n implementation strategy.' It specifies the resource (project architecture) and the purpose (i18n strategy), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly placing itself between i18n_checklist and get_framework_docs.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Usage guidance is explicit and detailed: 'Called during i18n_checklist Step 1' and 'Do NOT call this before calling the checklist tool.' It also explains the exact sequence with i18n_checklist and how the output is used with get_framework_docs, providing clear when-to-use and alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All main 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: i18n_checklist orchestrates the workflow, get_project_context detects project setup, get_framework_docs fetches framework docs, and get_i18n_library_docs fetches library docs. Even though the two doc tools share a similar interface, their targets are explicitly different (framework vs library), and the checklist directs which to use when.

Naming Consistency4/5

Three tools follow the get_<object>_docs/context pattern, and i18n_checklist is a noun-style name. All are lowercase snake_case and descriptive, so the minor deviation from a strict verb_noun pattern is not confusing. The i18n_ prefix on the checklist also ties it to the server's domain.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is well-scoped for a focused i18n implementation workflow. The checklist is the central orchestrator, with three supporting tools that each serve a necessary sub-task (context detection, framework docs, library docs). No tool feels redundant or missing.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface fully covers the i18n implementation lifecycle: i18n_checklist provides the step-by-step process, get_project_context gathers the required initial context, and the two doc tools supply current reference material. The checklist's evidence submission and build validation handle verification, so there are no obvious gaps or dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?