Lokalise MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions that the tool 'Removes a user' (implying a destructive mutation) and describes the return value, it does not address critical behavioral aspects such as required permissions, whether the action is reversible, error conditions, or rate limits. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by required parameters, usage examples, and return information in three efficient sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 that this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, usage context, and return value, but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, errors, or other behavioral traits that would be crucial for safe invocation. The output description is helpful but not fully compensatory.

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 fully documents both parameters (teamId and userId). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing the required parameters and their roles, but does not provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 ('Removes a user from a Lokalise team') with the resource ('team user'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'lokalise_remove_contributor' or 'lokalise_remove_members_from_group' which target different resources. It uses precise verbs and identifies the exact scope of the operation.

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 the tool ('to remove members, clean up permissions, or manage team structure'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. It offers practical scenarios but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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