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 key traits: it's a mutation tool (implied by 'updates'), performance characteristics ('~5 updates/second'), and system behaviors ('automatic rate limiting and retries'). It also specifies the return format ('Success/error per translation'). However, it doesn't mention error handling details or authentication requirements.

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 highly efficient and well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, lists requirements, provides usage examples, and closes with performance details—all in three sentences with zero wasted words. Every sentence adds critical information.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering purpose, usage, and behavioral traits. It explains the batch nature, performance limits, and return format. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates by stating the return type. Slight room for more error context.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions the 'updates array (up to 100)' and that 'Each update needs translation_id plus changes,' but this is redundant with schema details. No additional syntax or format insights are provided.

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 ('processes batch translation corrections or approvals') and resource ('translations'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'lokalise_update_translation' (singular) and 'lokalise_bulk_update_keys' (different resource). It explicitly mentions batch operations up to 100 items, making the scope clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('for mass approvals, systematic corrections, or importing reviewed content') and includes prerequisites ('Required: projectId, updates array'). It distinguishes from alternatives by emphasizing batch processing versus single updates, though it doesn't name specific sibling tools.

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