Lokalise MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses critical behavioral traits: the destructive nature ('Removes all term translations and rules'), bulk operation support ('Supports bulk deletion'), return value ('Returns: Deletion confirmation'), and an audit trail consideration. This covers safety, scope, and output expectations effectively.

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?

Well-structured with front-loaded purpose, required parameters, usage context, return info, warning, and alternative consideration. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more concise by combining some clauses (e.g., merging 'Use to...' with 'Warning...').

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 is highly complete: covers purpose, parameters, usage, behavioral warnings, and output. It lacks only minor details like error handling or exact confirmation format, but given the context, it's sufficient for safe agent use.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing required parameters ('Required: projectId, termIds array'), noting the array structure for bulk deletion, and linking termIds to glossary entries. However, it doesn't provide format examples or deeper constraints beyond the schema.

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 ('Removes') and resource ('glossary entries'), specifies the scope ('obsolete or incorrect'), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'bulk deletion' and contrasting with 'updating' (vs. lokalise_update_glossary_terms). It goes beyond a tautology by explaining the purpose ('clean up outdated terminology, remove duplicates, or fix mistakes').

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('to clean up outdated terminology, remove duplicates, or fix mistakes') and when to consider alternatives ('Consider updating instead of deleting for audit trail'), with a clear alternative tool (lokalise_update_glossary_terms). It also provides a prerequisite warning ('Warning: Removes all term translations and rules').

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