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 describes the tool's behavior by specifying what it returns ('Complete comment data with author details and creation time'), which helps the agent understand the output format. However, it doesn't mention potential errors, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps in behavioral context.

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 usage guidance and return details, all in three concise sentences with zero wasted words. Each sentence adds distinct value: the first states what it does, the second explains when to use it, and the third describes returns and tool pairing.

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 moderate complexity (3 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, returns, and tool relationships, but lacks details on error handling or response structure, which could be beneficial since there's no output schema. It's sufficient for basic use but not exhaustive.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (projectId, keyId, commentId) with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value by listing the required parameters but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples 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 ('Gets full details of a single comment') and resource ('comment'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'lokalise_list_key_comments' or 'lokalise_list_project_comments' which list multiple comments rather than retrieving details of a single one. The verb 'gets' is precise and the scope is well-defined.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use when comment text was truncated in list view or to get exact timestamps') and pairs it with an alternative tool ('Pairs with: lokalise_delete_comment for comment management'), providing clear context for selection versus other comment-related tools like list operations or deletion.

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