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 effectively describes the mutation effect ('grants access', 'All group members gain immediate project access') and the return value ('Operation confirmation'), which are crucial for a write operation. However, it lacks details on permissions required, error conditions, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 in three sentences: the first states the action and effect, the second lists required parameters and usage scenarios, and the third covers the return and immediate impact. Each sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the core functionality, usage, and behavioral outcomes. However, it could be more complete by addressing potential side effects, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), which are important for a mutation tool without structured annotations.

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%, with each parameter well-documented in the schema (teamId, groupId, projectIds). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing the required parameters but does not provide additional syntax, format, or semantic context. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 projects to a user group') and resource ('granting all group members access to specified projects'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'lokalise_remove_projects_from_group' (which removes projects) and 'lokalise_add_members_to_group' (which adds members rather than projects). The purpose is precise and unambiguous.

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 context for when to use this tool ('Use to expand group project scope, onboard projects to existing teams, or batch project assignments'), giving practical scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives (e.g., 'lokalise_remove_projects_from_group' for removal), 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.