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 as a read-only analysis tool ('deep analysis,' 'audits,' 'progress reports'), implies it returns comprehensive data without side effects, and specifies the return content ('Complete project metadata, team info, language progress, key statistics'). However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are minor gaps.

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 parameter notes, usage scenarios, and return values in a compact format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, such as specifying 'Essential for project status assessment' to reinforce utility. It's efficiently 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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, parameters, usage, and returns. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the structure of returned data (e.g., format of 'language progress'), but it still provides enough context for effective use.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'Required: projectId' and 'Optional: includeLanguages (completion rates), includeKeysSummary (content stats),' which slightly clarifies usage but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 tool's purpose as a 'deep analysis of a single project's health and configuration' with specific verbs like 'audits, progress reports, or understanding structure.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'lokalise_list_projects' (which lists multiple projects) by focusing on detailed analysis of a single project, making the scope and differentiation explicit.

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 project audits, progress reports, or understanding structure.' It also implies alternatives by specifying it's for 'deep analysis of a single project,' suggesting not to use it for listing multiple projects or other operations like creation/deletion handled by siblings. This gives 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.