Lokalise MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior and return format (users with roles, permissions, activity status), but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps for a read operation.

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?

It is front-loaded with core purpose, followed by parameter notes and usage examples in three efficient sentences with zero waste, 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it covers purpose, parameters, usage, and return format. However, it could improve by detailing output structure or error cases, given the lack of structured data.

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: teamId' and 'Optional: limit (100), page', but does not explain semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

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 ('all users in a Lokalise team'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying pagination support and team focus, unlike other list tools (e.g., list_contributors, list_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?

It provides clear context for when to use ('audit team composition, check access levels, or prepare team changes'), but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives among siblings, such as lokalise_get_team_user for a single user.

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