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 indicates this is a read operation ('retrieves'), describes the return format ('Full contributor profile including all language permissions and administrative rights'), and mentions required parameters. However, it doesn't address potential error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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 in three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the tool's purpose, listing required parameters, and describing the return value. There's no wasted language, and the most critical information (what the tool does) comes first.

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 read-only tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description provides good context: clear purpose, usage guidelines, and return value description. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates by detailing what's returned. With no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context about error handling or limitations.

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 both parameters adequately. The description mentions 'Required: projectId, contributorId' and provides context about what these identify, but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 'retrieves' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific team member's access and permissions', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'lokalise_list_contributors' (which lists multiple contributors) and 'lokalise_update_contributor' (which modifies contributor data). It specifies the exact scope of information retrieved.

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 provides three specific use cases: 'verify exact permissions before updates', 'investigate access issues', and 'get complete language assignments'. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_contributors (for overview) or update_contributor (for modifications).

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