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 of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context like the constraint 'Cannot modify your own admin rights' and mentions the return value ('Updated contributor profile'), but lacks details on permissions required, error conditions, or side effects, leaving gaps 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 three sentences: purpose, parameters, and usage/return/note. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with key 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 (mutation with 6 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, parameters, usage, and a constraint, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error handling, or the structure of the returned profile, which are important for safe invocation.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by specifying required vs. optional parameters and clarifying usage of 'admin_rights' and 'languages array' for role and language adjustments. With schema description coverage at 67%, it compensates well for the undocumented parameters like 'is_admin' and 'is_reviewer' (marked deprecated).

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('modifies', 'promote/demote', 'adjust', 'fix') and resources ('team member's role, permissions, or language access'), distinguishing it from siblings like lokalise_get_contributor (read-only) and lokalise_remove_contributor (deletion).

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 usage ('Use to promote/demote users, adjust language assignments, or fix permission issues'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as lokalise_update_team_user for broader team updates.

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