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 as a read-only inspection operation ('examines', 'verify', 'check', 'understand'), specifies the return content ('Complete language configuration including ISO codes, plural forms, and writing direction'), and highlights importance for complex grammar languages. It doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, but covers core behavior well.

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: purpose and required parameters, usage scenarios, and return value with importance note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and key information is front-loaded.

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 (100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description provides good completeness: clear purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral context, and return value details. It could slightly improve by mentioning error cases (e.g., invalid IDs) but covers essential context well given the tool's complexity.

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 (projectId, languageId) adequately. The description mentions these parameters as required but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no format examples or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('examines detailed settings') and resources ('for a specific project language'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'lokalise_list_project_languages' (which lists languages) and 'lokalise_update_language' (which modifies settings). It explicitly mentions what it inspects (plural rules, RTL configuration, custom settings).

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 ('to verify plural rules, check RTL configuration, or understand custom settings') and implies alternatives by contrasting with siblings that list or update languages. It also states prerequisites ('Required: projectId, languageId'), making usage context clear.

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