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 effectively discloses behavioral traits: it's a read operation ('Gets'), it requires specific IDs ('Required: projectId, processId'), and it returns comprehensive data ('Complete process details with logs and status history'). However, it doesn't mention potential error cases, rate limits, or authentication needs, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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: it starts with the core purpose, lists requirements, provides usage guidelines, and describes returns—all in three concise sentences with zero wasted words. Every sentence adds essential information.

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 (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage, requirements, and return value. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the structure of 'Complete process details' (e.g., specific fields), but the provided info is sufficient for basic 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 both parameters (projectId and processId) with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond this by stating 'Required: projectId, processId' and implying their purpose in context, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline of 3 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: 'Gets detailed status and information about a specific async process (upload, download, etc.)'. It specifies the verb ('Gets'), resource ('detailed status and information'), and scope ('specific async process'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'lokalise_list_queued_processes' which lists processes rather than getting details for a specific one.

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 usage guidelines: 'Use to check process completion, diagnose failures, or get detailed progress information.' This gives clear context on when to use this tool (e.g., monitoring async operations) versus alternatives like list tools for discovery or other get tools for different resources.

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