localize.dev

Fill missing translations

translate

Fills in missing translations, and redoes ones whose source text changed, in the existing locale files (JSON, YAML, .po, .arb, strings.xml, .xcstrings, .strings, messages.json). Code is not changed. Needs a localize.dev API key. 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": "translate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`app`	No	Monorepo: the app to work in (e.g. apps/web), relative to the repository root. Default: the root.
`files`	Yes	The 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.
`locales`	No	Languages to translate into, creating files as needed (default: the languages already there).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), it discloses the API-key requirement, that nothing is read from or written to disk, and critically that the response carries whole-file contents the caller must write back unchanged — the key operational contract. It does not say what happens on partial failures or whether unchanged files are omitted, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then constraints, then the return contract. Nothing is filler; even the parenthetical format list earns its place by telling the agent which files qualify.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining exactly what the returned `files` are and how to use them. Combined with the auth requirement and no-disk-IO statement, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first try.

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 `app`, `files`, and `locales` in detail. The description reinforces that files must be supplied in `files` rather than read from disk, but adds no meaning for `app` or `locales` beyond the schema — the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource (fills missing translations, redoes stale ones in existing locale files) and enumerates the supported formats (JSON, YAML, .po, .arb, strings.xml, .xcstrings, .strings, messages.json). The line "Code is not changed" draws an explicit boundary against the code-modifying sibling, so an agent can pick this tool without opening a schema.

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?

It states the triggering condition clearly: missing translations or source text that changed. The soft exclusion "Code is not changed" implies the alternative for code edits, but no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-not-to-use statement, so routing still requires a small inference.

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

All localize.dev tools Inspect

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.