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. It discloses that the tool returns 'Active languages with progress stats' and hints at pagination via 'limit, page', but lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's read-only. It adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps.

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 scenarios, and return values in three efficient sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, parameters, usage, and returns. However, it could be more complete by addressing authentication or error handling, which are relevant for API tools.

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 both parameters fully. The description adds marginal value by clarifying that 'includeProgress' shows 'completion %' and listing optional parameters, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('shows which languages are currently being translated') and resource ('in a project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'lokalise_list_system_languages' which lists available languages rather than project-specific ones. The purpose is precise and actionable.

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 audit translation coverage, identify incomplete languages, or prepare reports'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings. It offers practical guidance without exclusions.

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