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 mentions that the tool returns a created task with ID and assignments, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on permissions required, error conditions, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a creation tool with 16 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses three sentences efficiently: one for the main action, one for usage context, and one for return values with a tip. However, the tip about 'assignees' could be integrated more smoothly, and some redundancy exists with schema 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?

Given the complexity (16 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose, usage, and return values, but lacks details on error handling, authentication requirements, and the full scope of behavioral traits. For a creation tool with many parameters, more contextual guidance would be beneficial.

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 required parameters (projectId, title, languages array) and some optional ones, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. It does clarify the 'assignees' parameter's convenience purpose, which is a small enhancement.

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 ('Initiates a new batch of translation or review work'), identifies the resource ('task'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'lokalise_update_task' or 'lokalise_get_task' by focusing on creation rather than modification or retrieval. It provides concrete examples of what the tool does.

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 ('assign work to translators, set deadlines, or organize sprints'), but does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies usage scenarios without detailing exclusions or comparing to sibling tools like 'lokalise_update_task'.

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