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 by disclosing behavioral traits: it's a read operation ('fetches'), returns grouped data ('Comments grouped by key with context'), and warns about performance ('data-intensive for large projects'). It doesn't mention rate limits or auth needs, but covers key aspects for a list tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter notes, usage examples, return info, and a caution. Every sentence adds value (e.g., usage scenarios, data intensity warning) with zero waste, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 is quite complete: it explains purpose, usage, parameters, returns, and caveats. It could improve by detailing the return structure more (e.g., what 'grouped by key' entails), but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use it effectively.

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 fully documents parameters. The description adds minimal value by noting 'Required: projectId. Optional: limit (100), page,' which repeats schema info. It doesn't provide additional context like pagination behavior or format details beyond the schema.

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 'fetches' and resource 'all comments across an entire project,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'lokalise_list_key_comments' (comments for a specific key) and 'lokalise_get_comment' (single comment). It specifies 'comprehensive overview of team collaboration,' making the scope explicit.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('to identify keys with active discussions, audit communication patterns, or find unresolved questions') and provides a caution ('Can be data-intensive for large projects'), which helps differentiate from more targeted tools. It also mentions required and optional parameters, though this overlaps with schema info.

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