Lokalise MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it's a read operation (lists), includes status tracking, and hints at monitoring/troubleshooting use cases. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior beyond the schema's page parameter.

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 and usage context 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?

For a read-only list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states purpose, parameters, usage, and return values ('Processes with status, progress, and completion estimates'). It could improve by detailing output structure or error cases, but it covers essentials given the context.

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' and 'Optional: limit (100), page,' but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already states (e.g., branch notation for projectId is only in schema). 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 verb 'Lists' and resource 'background/async processes in a Lokalise project with status tracking.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'lokalise_get_queued_process' (singular) by specifying it lists all processes, and from other list tools by focusing on queued processes for monitoring operations.

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 it: 'to monitor file uploads, downloads, bulk operations, or troubleshoot process issues.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though the sibling 'lokalise_get_queued_process' is implied as an alternative for single-process retrieval.

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