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 thoroughly describes the tool's destructive nature ('Irreversible - deletes all keys, translations, history, and team assignments'), includes a critical warning, and specifies the return value ('Deletion confirmation'), covering essential behavioral traits beyond basic functionality.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage notes and warnings. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but could be slightly more concise by integrating the 'Returns' note into the main flow. Overall, it efficiently conveys critical information in a compact form.

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 tool's high complexity (destructive operation with irreversible consequences) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral risks, parameter requirement, and return value, leaving no significant gaps for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 the 'projectId' parameter. The description mentions 'Required: projectId' but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or sourcing details. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states the action ('permanently destroys') and resource ('a project and ALL its data'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'lokalise_empty_project' by emphasizing complete deletion versus partial emptying.

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 ('for removing test projects or discontinued products') and when to consider alternatives ('Consider emptying instead'). It also mentions prerequisites ('Export data first if needed'), offering comprehensive usage context.

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