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's a mutation tool ('modifies'), specifies that changes are 'visible immediately to all users' (important for side effects), and clarifies the return value ('Returns: Updated translation'). It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, but covers essential operational context.

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 statement, parameter guidance, and behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct information (functionality, usage examples, and side effects). No redundant or verbose language.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining what the tool does, when to use it, and important behavioral consequences. It could be more complete by mentioning authentication requirements or error scenarios, but covers the essential context given the complexity and schema richness.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing required/optional parameters and mapping 'translationData' fields to simpler names ('translation', 'is_reviewed', 'is_unverified'), but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter usage or constraints.

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', 'fix', 'approve', 'mark') and resources ('translated text', 'review status'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'lokalise_get_translation' (read-only) and 'lokalise_bulk_update_translations' (bulk operation). It explicitly identifies the target as 'actual translated text or its review status'.

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 usage context with examples ('fix typos, approve translations, or mark problematic content') and notes immediate visibility of changes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'lokalise_bulk_update_translations' for multiple updates or 'lokalise_update_key' for different resource types.

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