Set or update translations for a key in one or more languages. The key must already exist — use create_keys to create it first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| branch | No | Optional: branch name | |
| keyName | Yes | The translation key name | |
| namespace | No | Optional: namespace of the key | |
| projectId | No | ID of the project (required for PAT, auto-resolved for PAK) | |
| translations | Yes | Translations as {languageTag: text} map (e.g. {"en": "Hello", "de": "Hallo"}) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the precondition (key exists) and that it can update multiple languages, but does not clarify whether partial translation maps merge with or replace existing translations for unspecified languages. This is a notable gap for a mutation tool.
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, front-loaded with the primary action and necessary prerequisite. No wasted words.
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 5-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description gives essential context (key existence, multi-language support) but omits the update/merge behavior and return value. Still, it is functional and points to the sibling creation 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds semantic value by stating the key must already exist, which clarifies the keyName parameter's meaning. It also affirms that translations can cover multiple languages, reinforcing the structure of the translations object.
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 'Set or update translations for a key in one or more languages', identifying the specific action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_keys and update_key by focusing on translation values rather than key creation or metadata.
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?
It explicitly states that the key must already exist and directs the user to use create_keys first, providing clear when-to-use guidance and an alternative. This is explicit exclusion and fulfills the criterion.
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.
Most tools target distinct entities and actions, but a few pairs like create_keys/set_translation and list_keys/search_keys have overlapping functionality. The descriptions clearly differentiate their use cases, so ambiguity is limited.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (create_, delete_, get_, list_, set_, etc.), making the API predictable. The only slight deviation is machine_translate, but it still reads as a single action verb.
With 22 tools, the server covers many aspects of translation management, but the count is slightly above the ideal range. Each tool has a clear purpose, though some could potentially be consolidated without loss of functionality.
The core key and translation lifecycle is well covered, but there are notable gaps: languages only support create and list (no update/delete), tags can be added but not removed, and projects lack get/update/delete operations. These omissions may require workarounds.
