Lokalise MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the operation is a write ('Adds users'), has immediate effects ('Members immediately gain group permissions'), and returns a confirmation. However, it lacks details on permissions required, error conditions, rate limits, or whether it's idempotent, leaving gaps 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core action and purpose. It efficiently includes usage examples and return information in two sentences. However, the 'Required:' phrase is slightly redundant with the schema, and the structure could be more streamlined by integrating parameter details more naturally.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by explaining the action, usage, and immediate effects. However, for a mutation tool with 3 parameters, it lacks details on error handling, permissions, and exact return format (beyond 'confirmation'), 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (teamId, groupId, userIds). The description adds minimal value by listing required parameters but does not explain their semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format of IDs, constraints on userIds array). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Adds users to a user group') and resource ('user group'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'lokalise_create_usergroup' (creates new group) and 'lokalise_remove_members_from_group' (removes members). It also specifies the outcome ('granting them group-based permissions and project access'), making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 ('to onboard team members, assign role-based access, or batch permission updates'), which helps an agent understand when to apply this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives (e.g., 'lokalise_update_team_user' for individual user updates), missing full differentiation.

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