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 that this is a creation/mutation operation ('Initializes a new localization project'), specifies required vs. optional parameters, mentions default values ('base_lang_iso (default 'en')'), and describes the return value ('Project ID and access details'). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like permissions needed 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 in three sentences: purpose and parameters, usage context, and return/next steps. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, and it's appropriately sized for a creation tool with multiple parameters.

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 well by covering purpose, parameters, usage context, and return values. It could be more complete by mentioning authentication requirements or error conditions, but given the 100% schema coverage and clear behavioral context, it's mostly adequate.

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 by listing the parameters ('Required: name. Optional: description, base_lang_iso') and noting the default for base_lang_iso, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 ('Initializes a new localization project') and resource ('for an app or service'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'lokalise_update_project' or 'lokalise_list_projects'. It goes beyond just restating the name by specifying the context of localization.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('when starting localization for new products or creating test environments') and provides next steps ('Add languages, upload keys, invite team members'), which helps differentiate it from alternatives like updating existing projects or managing project components separately.

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