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 and does well by disclosing critical behavioral traits: it warns of 'Immediate effect - contributor loses all project access', specifies the return value ('Returns: Confirmation of removal'), and implies a destructive operation through 'revoking all access'. It doesn't detail error conditions or permissions required, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 usage guidelines and warnings in a structured, efficient manner. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second lists required parameters and use cases, the third covers returns and critical warnings, with zero redundant information.

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 complexity (a destructive operation with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage, behavioral effects, and parameters. It lacks details on error handling or authentication needs, but for a tool with good schema coverage and clear warnings, it's sufficient though not exhaustive.

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 ('projectId' and 'contributorId') adequately. The description mentions these as required but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or interdependencies, 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 specific action ('Removes a team member from a project, revoking all access') with the exact resource ('team member' and 'project'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'lokalise_update_contributor' or 'lokalise_delete_team_user' by focusing on project-specific contributor removal rather than team-wide user deletion or contributor updates.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance ('Use for offboarding, security cleanup, or removing inactive members') and when-not-to-use alternatives ('Consider permission downgrade instead for temporary changes'), offering clear context for selection over other tools like 'lokalise_update_contributor' for less drastic changes.

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