Lokalise MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully adds context about sending invitation emails automatically and describes the return value ('Added contributors with assigned IDs'), which are important behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., email notifications, permission implications), rate limits, or error conditions, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the action, specifying parameters, and describing behavior/return. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids unnecessary repetition. However, the second sentence is slightly dense, combining parameter requirements with usage examples, which could be split for better clarity.

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?

Given the complexity (2 parameters with nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate coverage of the tool's purpose, parameters, and key behaviors. It explains the return value and automatic email sending, which helps compensate for the missing output schema. However, it doesn't address potential errors, authentication requirements, or detailed permission semantics, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 50%, with the 'projectId' parameter well-described but the complex 'contributors' array lacking schema descriptions for most fields. The description compensates by specifying required parameters ('projectId, contributors array with email and permissions') and clarifying the structure ('admin_rights, is_reviewer, languages'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema. It doesn't fully document all nested fields (e.g., 'fullname', 'languages' object details), but provides enough guidance for effective use.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('onboards', 'adding') and resources ('team members', 'contributors'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'lokalise_add_members_to_group' by specifying it's for project contributors rather than group members. It explicitly mentions the target resource (project) and the action (onboarding).

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 usage contexts ('team expansion, granting translator access, or adding reviewers'), which helps an agent understand when to invoke this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., 'lokalise_add_members_to_group' for group-level additions), which prevents a perfect score.

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