Get available keys in a specific module for translation in a project.
Args: module_id: The ID of the module to get keys from project_key: Project key (tenant ID). Uses global tenant_id if not provided
Returns: JSON string with available keys including key names, IDs, and resources
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| module_id | Yes | ||
| project_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that this is a read-only 'Get' operation, explains the fallback to global tenant_id when project_key is omitted, and specifies the return format (JSON string with key names, IDs, resources). This adds meaningful context beyond the tool name, though it omits error handling and authorization details.
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?
The description is tightly structured with a one-line summary, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence provides relevant information without fluff, making it an exemplar of concise technical writing.
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 simple getter with two parameters and a fixed return type, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, argument semantics (especially the optional parameter), and output format. The presence of an output schema further clarifies return structure. It lacks error-handling details and prerequisites, but these are not critical for this low-complexity tool.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains module_id as the module to fetch keys from (mostly restating the schema) and project_key as a tenant ID with a fallback default, which adds useful semantics. However, the explanation for module_id is shallow, providing only partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions.
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 clearly states that this tool gets available keys in a specific module for translation, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource (module keys). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_translation_modules (which lists modules) and save_module_keys_with_translations (which saves keys).
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 provides clear context: it is used for translation in a project and requires a module_id, with an optional project_key. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, though the intended use case is evident from the wording.
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 tools are organized into clear domains (auth, roles, schemas, translations, projects), and within each domain, tools have distinct purposes (e.g., get_schema vs list_schemas, save_captcha_config vs update_captcha_status). A few pairs like get_auth_status and get_authentication_config could cause minor confusion, but their descriptions clarify the difference.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, using predictable verbs like get, list, create, update, set, enable, and configure. Even longer names like save_module_keys_with_translations adhere to the same convention, with no mixed casing or arbitrary styles.
With 36 tools, the server exceeds the typical well-scoped range for MCP servers. While the broad platform domain justifies some breadth, the sheer volume can overwhelm agents and suggests the toolset could be consolidated or split into smaller, focused servers.
The toolset provides decent coverage for creation, listing, and some updates across entities like permissions, roles, schemas, and translations. However, there are notable gaps: no delete operations for most resources, no role update, and no project update/delete, which leaves lifecycle management incomplete.
