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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies the bulk operation scope (min 1, max 100 keys), error handling ('doesn't throw an error if a key doesn't exist'), and output behavior ('returns failures list if any'). It could improve by mentioning potential side effects or permissions needed, but covers essential operational details.

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, starting with the core purpose, followed by bullet points that efficiently cover key details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear and easy to parse, making it highly effective for quick understanding.

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 (bulk deletion with error handling), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the operation, parameters, and behavioral traits. It could be enhanced by detailing the output format (e.g., structure of 'failures list') or success criteria, but covers the essential context for safe and effective use.

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 fully documents the 'translationKeys' parameter, including its array structure, min/max items, and nested properties. The description adds minimal value beyond this, briefly mentioning the array and optional 'namespace', but doesn't provide additional semantic context like format examples or usage tips. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('delete translation keys in bulk') and resource ('SimpleLocalize project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_translation_key_bulk' or 'update_translation_key'. It uses precise verbs and identifies the target resource without ambiguity.

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 this to clean up unused keys efficiently'), indicating when to apply this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as 'delete_translation_key' (if it exists) or 'update_translation_key' for modifications instead of deletions.

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