SimpleLocalize 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 states the tool creates a new tag, implying a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient transparency.

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 concise with three sentences: purpose statement, parameter guidance, and benefit explanation. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the bullet-point format for parameters is slightly redundant with the schema, and the last sentence about organizing keys could be more tightly integrated.

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 is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on success (e.g., returns tag ID), error conditions, or system constraints. Given the complexity of creating resources in a project management system, more behavioral context is needed.

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 fully documents the two parameters (name and color). The description adds minimal value by restating that name must be unique and color should be in hex format, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. 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 tool creates a new tag in a SimpleLocalize project, specifying the verb 'create' and resource 'tag'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_tags' or 'create_language' by focusing on tag creation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions tags help organize translation keys, but doesn't specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare with sibling tools like 'get_tags' or 'create_translation_key_bulk'. This leaves the agent without contextual usage direction.

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