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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it's a discovery/read operation (implied by 'Discovers'), mentions pagination support through 'page' parameter, specifies the return format ('Languages with ISO codes, native names, RTL status, plural forms'), and indicates it's for preparatory work before project modifications. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, 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?

The description is efficiently structured with zero wasted sentences. It starts with the core purpose, lists optional parameters, provides usage scenarios, specifies return values, and ends with the essential use case. Every sentence adds clear value without redundancy.

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 (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides comprehensive context about purpose, usage, and return format. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what information it returns. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention about authentication or error handling, but for a read-only discovery tool, this is acceptable.

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 both parameters (limit and page). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'Optional: limit (100), page' and the pagination context. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter usage.

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 ('Discovers all languages available'), the resource ('in Lokalise platform'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on system-wide languages rather than project-specific ones (unlike 'lokalise_list_project_languages'). It explicitly mentions the purpose is to find languages 'that can be added to projects'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'before project setup, verify language codes, or check RTL/plural form support' and states it's 'Essential before adding new target languages.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on system-level language discovery rather than project-specific operations.

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