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 excels. It discloses the destructive behavior ('Permanently deletes ALL translations for this language'), provides a safety precaution ('Export translations first if needed'), and specifies the return value ('Removal confirmation'). This covers key behavioral traits like permanence and output format.

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 the core purpose, followed by usage context, return value, and critical warning. Every sentence adds essential information—no fluff. The structure efficiently guides the agent from what the tool does to when and how to use it safely.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral warnings, and return value, compensating for the lack of structured data. The critical warning about permanent deletion is particularly valuable for safe agent operation.

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. The description mentions 'Required: projectId, languageId' but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or constraints). This meets 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 ('drops support for a language by removing it from the project') and resource ('language'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'lokalise_update_language' (which modifies) or 'lokalise_list_project_languages' (which lists). The verb 'drops support' and 'removing' precisely convey the destructive nature of the operation.

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 ('when discontinuing localization for a market or cleaning up test languages') and provides a critical warning about permanent deletion. It distinguishes this tool from alternatives by emphasizing its irreversible nature, guiding the agent away from misuse in non-destructive scenarios.

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