Lokalise MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format ('Contributors with email, role, admin status, and language permissions') and mentions pagination via 'page' parameter, which is helpful. However, it doesn't cover error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'Lists').

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?

Front-loaded with core purpose, followed by parameter notes, usage scenarios, and return details. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second covers parameters, the third gives usage contexts, and the fourth describes returns and a specific use case. 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?

For a list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by specifying return fields and usage contexts. However, it lacks explicit mention of read-only safety or error handling, which would be beneficial given the absence of annotations. Still, it's largely complete for its purpose.

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 by noting 'Required: projectId' and 'Optional: limit (100), page' but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('Lists all team members'), resource ('in a project'), and scope ('with their roles and permissions'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'lokalise_get_contributor' (singular) and 'lokalise_list_team_users' (team-wide vs project-specific).

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use scenarios: 'audit team access, check language assignments, or prepare permission changes' and 'Use before adding new members to avoid duplicates.' This gives clear context for selection over alternatives like 'lokalise_get_contributor' or 'lokalise_list_team_users'.

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