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 communicates key behavioral traits: the creation/mutation nature ('Adds new'), the batch limit ('up to 1000 keys per request'), the return format ('Returns: Created keys with IDs and any errors'), and workflow implications ('Tip: Include base language translations to speed up workflow'). However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements or rate limits.

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 zero wasted sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides required/optional parameters, usage context, return values, and a helpful tip - all in a compact format where every sentence earns its place.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral context. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and provides practical tips. The main gap is the lack of explicit mention of authentication or permission requirements.

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 by briefly mentioning 'Required: projectId, keys array with {key_name, platforms}' and 'Optional per key: description, tags, translations,' but doesn't provide additional 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 new UI text or content to be translated'), identifies the resource ('keys'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying the scope ('up to 1000 keys per request'). It explicitly differentiates from lokalise_list_keys for verification purposes.

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 ('Use for new features, initial setup, or content expansion') and names a specific alternative tool ('Pairs with: lokalise_list_keys to verify'). It also mentions a tip about including base language translations to speed up workflow.

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