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 effectively explains the effect ('Removes all keys and translations but keeps languages, team, and project configuration'), safety profile ('Safer alternative to deletion'), and return value ('Operation confirmation'). However, it lacks details on error conditions or permissions required.

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 with front-loaded key information, using brief sentences that each serve a distinct purpose (purpose, requirement, use cases, return, effect, safety). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 complexity (destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description does well by explaining the effect, safety, and use cases. However, it could improve by detailing error responses or confirmation format, slightly reducing completeness for a mutation tool.

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 single parameter 'projectId'. The description adds minimal value by restating 'Required: projectId' but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or constraints beyond what the schema specifies, 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 ('Resets project content') and resource ('project'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'lokalise_delete_project' by emphasizing preservation of settings and team. It explicitly contrasts with deletion, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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 major refactoring, starting fresh, or clearing test data') and when not to use it by naming a safer alternative to deletion. It also mentions prerequisites ('Required: projectId'), 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.