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 states this is a read operation ('Gets'), describes the return format ('Complete user profile with all team permissions and administrative rights'), and implies it's for investigation/verification purposes. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the data is real-time vs cached.

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, requirements, and return value. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 and 100% schema coverage, the description provides good context about purpose, usage scenarios, and return format. Since there's no output schema, the description of return values ('Complete user profile with all team permissions and administrative rights') is particularly valuable. The main gap is lack of behavioral details like authentication or error handling.

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 fully documents both parameters (teamId and userId). The description mentions these are required but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as where to find these IDs or format expectations. The baseline of 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 ('Gets detailed information'), target resource ('about a specific user in a team'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'lokalise_list_team_users' (which lists multiple users) and 'lokalise_get_current_user' (which gets the current user). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to verify user permissions, check role assignments, or investigate access issues'), which helps differentiate it from list operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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