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 and does well by disclosing critical behavioral traits: it's a destructive operation ('permanently removes', 'cannot be undone'), requires specific parameters, returns a confirmation, and suggests archiving important discussions. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, but covers the essential safety profile.

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: first sentence states purpose, second lists requirements, third gives usage examples, fourth specifies return value, and fifth provides critical warning. Each sentence adds value with zero wasted words, and the warning is appropriately placed at the end for emphasis.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, parameters, and irreversible nature. It could be more complete by detailing the confirmation return format or error cases, but given the schema's full parameter coverage and the clear behavioral disclosure, it's largely 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 three parameters (projectId, keyId, commentId) with their types and purposes. The description lists them as required but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high 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 ('permanently removes'), resource ('a specific comment from a translation key'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'lokalise_get_comment' (read) and 'lokalise_create_comments' (create). It goes beyond the tool name by specifying the scope and permanence.

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 usage contexts ('to clean up resolved discussions, remove outdated information, or delete accidental comments') and a warning about irreversibility. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'lokalise_update_key' for editing instead of deleting).

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