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. It discloses that the tool returns 'Full key data including all translations, platforms, tags, comments, and history,' which adds useful behavioral context about the response format. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, such as specifying use cases and return data. It could be slightly more concise by avoiding redundancy (e.g., 'Deep-dives' and 'detailed analysis' are somewhat repetitive), but overall it's well-structured with zero waste.

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 (a read operation with 2 parameters) and no output schema, the description does a good job by explaining the return values ('Full key data including...') and use cases. It covers essential context for an agent to understand when and how to use it, though it could benefit from mentioning potential limitations or examples.

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 both parameters (projectId and keyId). The description mentions 'Required: projectId, keyId' but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the format or source of these IDs. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 clearly states the specific action ('Deep-dives into a single content item to understand its complete state') and resource ('content item' implied as a key). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'lokalise_list_keys' (which lists multiple keys) by emphasizing detailed investigation of a single item, making the purpose specific 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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('to investigate translation status, view all language versions, check metadata, or debug issues' and 'Essential for detailed analysis or before making targeted updates'). It implies alternatives by contrasting with bulk operations or list tools, providing clear context for selection.

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