Lokalise MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the tool is a retrieval operation (safe read), mentions pagination behavior ('paginated list'), and describes return format ('comments with author, timestamp, and content'). It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers core behavioral aspects adequately.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with zero waste: first states purpose and required/optional params, second gives usage examples, third describes returns and pairs with sibling. Every sentence adds essential information, and it's front-loaded with 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 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains purpose, usage, parameters, return format, and sibling relationships. The main gap is lack of explicit mention of authentication or error handling, but given the context (list operation with good schema), it's largely sufficient.

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 all 4 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond schema: it labels projectId and keyId as 'Required' and limit/page as 'Optional', and provides default values for limit (100) and page (implied default 1), but these details are largely redundant with schema constraints.

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 verb 'retrieves' and the resource 'all comments for a specific translation key', distinguishing it from siblings like 'lokalise_list_project_comments' (which lists comments at project level) and 'lokalise_get_comment' (which gets a single comment). It specifies the scope is per key, not project-wide.

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 states when to use ('to understand discussion history and context', 'review translator questions, see implementation notes, or audit collaboration on a specific key') and pairs it with 'lokalise_create_comments to continue discussions', providing clear alternatives and complementary tools.

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