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 does well by describing what the tool returns ('Complete translation data including content, reviewer info, timestamps, and quality flags') and its purpose ('Essential for translation debugging'). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions that would be important for a read operation.

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 three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the core function, specifying requirements and use cases, and describing the return value. While concise, the final sentence 'Essential for translation debugging' feels somewhat redundant with the earlier context about QA issues.

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 operation with no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what data will be returned. Given the 100% schema coverage and clear purpose, the description provides adequate context. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about response structure 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 documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description mentions that projectId and translationId are required, which is already clear from the schema's required array. It doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides about parameter usage or relationships.

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', 'check', 'review', 'investigate') and resource ('a single piece of translated text in detail'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'lokalise_list_translations' by focusing on detailed examination of one translation rather than listing multiple translations.

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 check exact wording, review status, modification history, or investigate QA issues'), making it evident this is for detailed inspection rather than bulk operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools from the sibling list.

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