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 investigation operation (implied by 'investigates', 'check', 'view', 'debug'), specifies the required parameters, and details the return data format ('Complete task data including all assignments, completion percentages, settings, and history'), though it doesn't mention potential errors or rate limits.

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 with four sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the core action, listing requirements, providing usage examples, and specifying return data and sibling pairing. There is no wasted verbiage, 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a comprehensive overview: purpose, usage scenarios, required parameters, return data details, and sibling tool relationship. It adequately compensates for the lack of output schema by describing the return format, though it doesn't cover all edge cases like error conditions.

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 taskId) adequately. The description adds minimal value by restating the required parameters but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema offers, meeting 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 with specific verbs ('investigates', 'check', 'view', 'debug') and resource ('work assignment'), and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly naming lokalise_update_task as the modification alternative. It goes beyond the name by explaining the detailed investigation aspect.

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 check task progress, view assignee workload, or debug workflow issues') and names a specific alternative ('Pairs with: lokalise_update_task for modifications'), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like lokalise_list_tasks or lokalise_update_task.

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