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. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing data not mentioned. For a mutation tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by bullet points that efficiently outline identification and update parameters. There's no wasted text, but the structure could be slightly improved by explicitly separating identification vs. update steps for better clarity.

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 complexity (10 parameters, mutation tool) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, response format, or side effects. For a tool that modifies data in a project with multiple sibling tools, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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: it lists optional fields to update and provides examples of use cases (renaming keys, moving between namespaces). However, it doesn't add significant semantic context or syntax details not already in the schema descriptions, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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: 'update a translation key (metadata and/or key/namespace) in your SimpleLocalize project.' It specifies the verb ('update'), resource ('translation key'), and scope ('metadata and/or key/namespace'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_translations_bulk' or 'get_translation_key_details,' which would require 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 implied usage guidance: 'Use this to rename keys, move keys between namespaces, or update key metadata.' This gives context for when to use the tool but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., vs. 'update_translations_bulk' for bulk updates or 'get_translation_key_details' for read-only access). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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