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 creation tool (implied mutation), supports bulk creation up to 1000 terms, and returns created terms with IDs. It could improve by mentioning permissions, rate limits, or error handling, but it covers essential operational aspects well for a creation 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter highlights, usage examples, and return details in three efficient sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the purpose, parameters, usage context, return values, and bulk limits. It could be more complete by detailing error cases or auth requirements, but it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool effectively.

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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reiterates required fields ('projectId, terms array with {term, definition}') and lists optional per-term attributes, but these are already detailed in the schema. 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 verb ('Adds') and resource ('new terminology rules' / 'glossary terms'), specifying it's for maintaining translation consistency. It distinguishes from siblings like 'lokalise_update_glossary_terms' (update vs. create) and 'lokalise_delete_glossary_terms' (delete vs. create), making the purpose specific 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 explicit usage context: 'Use for brand names, technical jargon, or untranslatable terms,' which helps the agent understand when to apply this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives like 'lokalise_update_glossary_terms' for modifications, so it lacks full exclusion or comparison guidance.

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