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 effectively discloses key behaviors: it's a read-only overview tool (implied by 'overview'), returns paginated results with optional stats, and serves as an entry point. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 purpose, efficiently lists optional parameters, and provides usage guidance in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains purpose, usage, parameters, and return values ('Projects with names, IDs, base language, stats'). It could improve by specifying output format details or error handling, but it's sufficient for basic use.

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%, providing full parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value by mentioning parameters briefly ('Optional: limit (100), page, includeStats') but doesn't explain semantics beyond what the schema already covers, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('list' implied by 'overview') and resource ('all accessible localization projects'), distinguishing it from siblings by emphasizing it's an entry point for discovery and assessment rather than specific operations like 'create_project' or 'delete_project'.

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: 'Use as entry point to discover projects, assess translation health, or find specific project IDs' and 'Start here before diving into specific projects,' providing clear context and distinguishing from sibling tools focused on specific project operations.

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