Lokalise MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies the operation is destructive ('Immediate effect - users lose group permissions and project access'), describes the return value ('Operation confirmation'), and implies permission requirements through context. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth details, but covers the critical safety aspects for a mutation tool.

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 four sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: action, parameters, usage contexts, and warning. It's front-loaded with the core action and could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter list more seamlessly, but overall wastes no space.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and behavioral implications. It explains the consequences ('users lose group permissions and project access') and return value, though it could benefit from more detail on error conditions or specific permission requirements to be fully complete.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by listing required parameters ('Required: teamId, groupId, userIds array'), which merely repeats schema information without providing additional semantic context like format examples or constraints beyond what's in the schema.

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 users from a user group'), the resource affected ('user group'), and the consequences ('revoking group-based permissions and project access'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'lokalise_add_members_to_group' by specifying removal rather than addition, and from 'lokalise_delete_usergroup' by targeting members rather than the group itself.

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 usage contexts ('role changes, offboarding, or permission cleanup'), which helps an agent understand when to invoke this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives (e.g., 'lokalise_update_team_user' for individual permission changes), missing full sibling differentiation.

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