SimpleLocalize MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'returns metadata such as description, codeDescription, tags, and charactersLimit,' which gives some insight into output behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied but not stated). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 and well-structured, using a bulleted list to highlight key points. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently covers parameters and return metadata without unnecessary verbosity. However, it could be slightly more polished in phrasing (e.g., 'This tool will return' vs. 'Returns').

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It explains the purpose and parameters adequately but lacks output details (only a partial list of metadata), error handling, and usage context. With no output schema, the description should ideally provide more comprehensive return value information.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('key' and 'namespace'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by noting that 'key' is required and 'namespace' is optional, but does not provide additional context like format examples or usage scenarios. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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: 'return details for a specific translation key in your SimpleLocalize project.' It specifies the resource (translation key) and verb (return details), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_all_translation_keys' or 'get_translations', which is why it's a 4 rather than a 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 does not mention sibling tools like 'get_all_translation_keys' (for listing all keys) or 'get_translations' (which might return translation values), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of contextual guidance limits its utility for an AI agent.

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