Lokalise MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the mutation effect ('revoking group member access'), a warning about immediate impact ('All group members lose immediate project access'), and the return value ('Operation confirmation'). It lacks details on permissions, error handling, or rate limits, but covers the core safety and outcome.

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 required parameters, usage context, return value, and a warning. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure is logical and efficient.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains the action, impact, usage, and return, but could improve by detailing error cases or permissions. For a mutation tool, it adequately covers the essentials without structured support.

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 all three parameters (teamId, groupId, projectIds) with descriptions. The description adds marginal value by listing them as 'Required' and noting projectIds is an 'array', but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema's descriptions (e.g., format examples or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 projects from a user group') and resource ('user group'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'lokalise_add_projects_to_group' (adds) and 'lokalise_remove_members_from_group' (removes members). It specifies the effect: 'revoking group member access to specified 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 clear context for when to use it: 'to limit project scope, offboard projects, or restructure access.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., using 'lokalise_delete_project' for full deletion vs. removing from group), but the purpose implies it's for managing group-project associations.

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