Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

localize.dev

by io.github.ufortstephen
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check localization

check
Read-only

Finds UI copy still hardcoded in the code and translations missing or out of date in the locale files, each with its file and line. Changes nothing and needs no API key. Run it before and after localize or translate. Send the files in files; nothing is read from or written to your disk. The answer's files are the ones to create or overwrite, each with its whole new content: write them back unchanged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "files": "<files>"
    },
    "name": "check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appNoMonorepo: the app to work in (e.g. apps/web), relative to the repository root. Default: the root.
dirNoSource folder to scan, relative to the app (default: localize.config.json, else the framework's own).
onlyNoCheck only hardcoded copy, or only translations.
filesYesThe project files this call needs, with paths relative to the project root: the UI files to work on, package.json, localize.config.json when there is one, and the existing locale files (for example locales/en.json and locales/es.json). Leave out node_modules, build output and binary files.
pathsNoOnly these files, relative to the source folder (e.g. ["components/Cart.tsx"]): hardcoded copy and unknown keys in them. Fast; use it on the files you just changed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds substantial information beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it changes nothing, needs no API key, and neither reads nor writes the user's disk, with all input supplied via `files`. It also discloses the important output contract that the returned `files` are complete new contents the caller must write back unchanged, which is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs. It could be slightly clearer on whether partial or unknown files may be returned.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the safety/behavioral traits, then usage ordering, then the output contract. Dense but nearly every sentence carries load; the final write-back instruction is slightly compressed and could be separated for readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the shape and purpose of the returned `files` and how to persist them, and it covers the no-disk-access model. Minor gaps remain around how the results report found items versus returned file contents, but the definition is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including the enum and nested file objects. The description reinforces `files` as the sole input channel and hints at the fast `paths` mode, but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and two concrete resources: hardcoded UI copy in code and missing/stale translations in locale files, with file and line locations reported. The line 'Run it before and after localize or translate' implicitly positions it as the verification counterpart to the sibling tools that perform the edits.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance: before and after localize or translate, and specifically on the files just changed when using `paths`. It stops short of stating any exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions, but the sequencing guidance against siblings is strong.

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

All localize.dev toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources