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 some context by stating 'Changes affect how translations are handled,' which hints at downstream impacts, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is reversible. This leaves significant 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by parameter highlights and usage examples. Each sentence adds value, though the final sentence about translation effects could be integrated more smoothly.

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 nested objects) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and usage examples but falls short on behavioral details like permissions or response format, which are crucial 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing required and optional fields in 'languageData,' but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies (e.g., format details for 'plural_forms'). 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 tool's purpose as 'Modifies language settings within a project,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'lokalise_update_project' or 'lokalise_remove_language,' which handle related but different operations.

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 implied usage guidance by stating 'Use to fix incorrect configurations, customize language names, or adjust plural rules,' which gives context for when to apply this tool. However, it lacks explicit alternatives (e.g., when to use 'lokalise_add_project_languages' instead) or clear exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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