Lokalise MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes with clear verb_noun names. However, with 59 tools, some similar operations exist (e.g., bulk_delete vs single delete, list vs get for various entities), but descriptions clearly differentiate them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'lokalise_verb_noun' pattern, with verbs like list, create, update, delete, get, add, remove used predictably across the surface.
Tool Count2/5
59 tools is far beyond the typical 3-15 range for a coherent server. This many tools can overwhelm an agent and lead to selection errors, even if individually well-described.
Completeness5/5
The surface provides full CRUD and lifecycle management for projects, keys, translations, contributors, glossary, tasks, comments, languages, teams, and groups. No obvious gaps.
Average 4.1/5 across 59 of 59 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 28, 2025
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description claims 'cursor pagination' but the input schema uses a 'page' parameter (offset pagination), creating a contradiction. It also omits the 'filterFilenames' parameter. No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits, but it fails here.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. However, the error about pagination and missing parameter detract from clarity and structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers basic usage and return type but is incomplete due to the pagination contradiction and omitted parameter. It provides adequate but not comprehensive context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While schema coverage is 100%, the description incorrectly mentions 'cursor' instead of 'page' and misses 'filterFilenames'. This adds confusion rather than clarity, reducing the value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists translation keys and explores content structure. It provides use cases like browsing, finding keys, or auditing. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like lokalise_list_translations, though the purpose is distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises 'Start here to understand project content,' implying it is the first step. It lists required and optional parameters but does not specify when not to use or alternatives, leaving usage mostly implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral info. It discloses bulk creation up to 1000 terms and returns created terms with IDs, but does not clarify mutability, idempotency, or handling of duplicates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is brief (3 sentences), no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and then lists required/optional params and return value. Efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description appropriately notes the return value. It covers required parameters, optional flags, bulk limit, and usage examples. Sufficient for a create tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 each parameter. The description adds a narrative summary of required and optional fields, but no additional syntactic details beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it adds terminology rules to maintain translation consistency. The verb 'creates' is implicit in 'adds', and the resource is glossary terms. It distinguishes from siblings like delete and update through the name, but no explicit differentiation in text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides usage context: 'Use for brand names, technical jargon, or untranslatable terms.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools like update_glossary_terms for modifying existing terms.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 mentions that it returns 'Active languages with progress stats' but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only, safe operation, nor does it disclose any side effects or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it includes inaccurate parameter references (limit, page) that waste space and could mislead, reducing overall efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description gives a vague idea of the return ('Active languages with progress stats') and lists use cases. It does not cover pagination or response structure, which would be helpful for a list tool. The erroneous parameters also detract from completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to includeProgress by describing it as 'shows completion %', which matches the schema. However, it also mentions 'limit' and 'page' as optional parameters, which are not present in the input schema, causing confusion and misinformation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states what the tool does ('Shows which languages are currently being translated in a project') and lists specific use cases (audit coverage, identify incomplete languages, prepare reports). It distinguishes itself from siblings like lokalise_add_project_languages and lokalise_list_system_languages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly lists required and optional parameters and suggests use cases. It recommends 'Start here to understand project's localization scope,' but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It clearly states it's a read operation (lists), describes parameters, and outlines return content. Does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a list tool this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose+params, use cases, return info. Front-loaded and efficient. Minor improvement could include more structured formatting.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema or annotations, description covers purpose, parameters, return shape, and usage. Lacks error handling or pagination depth, but sufficient for a simple list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description repeats schema info (required teamId, optional limit/page) but adds no new semantic detail beyond defaults. Does not explain parameter relationships or formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Describes listing all user groups with pagination, clearly stating verb and resource. Lacks explicit differentiation from sibling list tools like lokalise_list_contributors, but the resource (user groups) is specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions use cases (audit, check group structure, prepare management) but does not provide when-not or alternatives. Adequate for a straightforward list tool, but could be more explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'Starts translating' and returns added languages, but lacks details on side effects, error handling, or whether it overwrites existing languages. The lack of behavioral depth is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at three sentences plus a tip, front-loaded with purpose and structured logically. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description mentions return values. It covers required and optional params and provides a usage context. It could mention handling of duplicate languages, but overall adequate for a simple add operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description summarizes required and optional parameters and adds a tip about checking system languages, providing modest extra value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool adds languages to a project, with a specific verb 'add' and resource 'project languages'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list or remove languages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes explicit usage context: 'Use when expanding to new markets or adding regional variants.' It also provides a tip to check system languages, implying a prerequisite, but no explicit when-not-to-use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that comments are visible to all project members and that the tool returns created comments with IDs. No annotations exist, so description carries the burden, but it does not cover permissions, rate limits, or error handling for a creation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four sentences front-load purpose, then required fields, use cases, and return/note. No redundant information, though the required fields sentence somewhat duplicates schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers required fields, return format, visibility, and bulk capability. However, lacks details on error conditions, required permissions, and what happens if the key does not exist. For a creation tool with no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so description adds limited value beyond repetition. It highlights bulk creation (array can have multiple items) and return format, but does not provide deeper semantic context like constraints on comment text length or formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool adds comments to a translation key for team collaboration, specifying it can handle one or more comments and supports bulk creation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete, list, and get comments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit use cases: 'ask translators questions, provide context, leave implementation notes, or flag issues.' Also mentions bulk creation for efficiency. However, lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools for related actions like editing comments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden. It describes returns (assignees, progress, due dates, language scope) implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, rate limits, or authentication needs. Adequate but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise with four sentences covering main purpose, parameters, use cases, and return data. Slightly front-loaded but could be more structured as bullet points. Minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, required/optional params, use cases, and returned fields. Missing details on sorting, pagination behavior, or error handling, but satisfactory overall.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100% and the description adds usage context for parameters, there is a contradiction: description states default limit is 50, but schema specifies 100. This misalignment degrades reliability for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool monitors ongoing translation work and deadlines, identifies the resource (tasks), and lists use cases. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create_task or delete_task by focusing on listing/monitoring.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides concrete usage contexts ('Use to track workload, find overdue tasks, or check assignment status') and lists required/optional parameters. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios where get_task or create_task would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It warns about data-intensity for large projects and mentions return format (grouped by key). But it omits auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior on invalid projectId, which are relevant for a listing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with purpose, parameters, use cases, and a warning. It is slightly verbose (5 sentences) but each sentence adds value, and front-loading is reasonable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter usage, use cases, and a performance warning. It lacks pagination details beyond page param (in schema) but is largely complete for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description restates parameter info (required/optional, limit default) already present in the schema, adding no new semantic detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches all comments across an entire project, distinguishing it from key-specific comment tools like lokalise_list_key_comments. It specifies the scope (project-level) and resource (comments).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear use cases (identify active discussions, audit patterns, find unresolved questions) and mentions required/optional parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives like lokalise_list_key_comments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should convey read-only nature and side effects. It mentions status tracking and return fields but does not explicitly state it is read-only or require no special permissions. Adequate but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences and bullet-like formatting. Front-loaded with key action. Every sentence adds value, though structuring as plain text could be improved.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and return fields adequately. Lacks detail on pagination but schema covers it. Fairly complete for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description restates required and optional parameters but adds only minor context (branch notation for projectId). Does not add significant meaning beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Lists all background/async processes' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools that list other entities like keys or projects. It also provides context on use cases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear use cases (monitor uploads, downloads, bulk operations, troubleshoot) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. However, the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states it's a read operation ('inspection'), notes return fields (content, status, QA flags), and indicates pagination via cursor/limit. However, it does not disclose rate limits, potential cost, or behavior when filters are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, parameters, use cases, return info and differentiation. Front-loaded and no filler. Efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, basic param guidance, and use cases. It lacks detail on pagination behavior, explanation of all filters, and a complete description of return format. Adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds context for 6 of 10 parameters (projectId, limit, cursor, filterLangId, filterIsReviewed, filterQaIssues) and clarifies filterLangId is numeric. It omits filterUnverified, filterUntranslated, filterActiveTaskId, and disableReferences, leaving gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Low-level inspection of actual translated text across languages' with a specific verb (inspection/list) and resource (translations). It also explicitly differentiates from keys: 'Different from keys - this shows actual text.' Use cases like quality audits and checking untranslated content further clarify purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists required (projectId) and optional parameters, and gives use cases (quality audits, finding untranslated content, checking language progress). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like lokalise_get_translation for a single translation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses mutation behavior, return value, and a critical limitation (self-modification restriction). Lacks details on idempotency or effect of providing no optional parameters, but is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, required/optional, use cases, return, and limitation. No verbose or redundant phrases. Efficient for its content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, a key behavioral constraint, and return type. Missing error handling or concurrency info, but these are reasonable gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover 67% of parameters; description adds context by grouping optional parameters (admin_rights, is_reviewer, languages) and explaining their purpose (role/permission changes). It also clarifies deprecated fields. Does not add structural details beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Modifies' and resource 'team member's role, permissions, or language access'. It distinguishes from siblings like add/remove/list by focusing on modification, and specifies use cases (promote/demote, adjust language assignments, fix permission issues).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Lists required and optional parameters, and includes a key limitation ('Cannot modify your own admin rights'). While it could explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., use add_contributor for new members), the context from sibling names makes the intent clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States immediate application and metadata-only scope, but lacks disclosure of side effects, authorization needs, or limits. Does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences plus usage examples. Efficient but includes redundant 'Required' list already in schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers main use cases and notes return value, but omission of keyData required nature and missing key_name cause gaps for a 3-param nested tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds erroneous 'key_name' (not in schema) and misstates 'keyData' as optional (it is required). This confusion reduces value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specifically states 'Modifies key metadata' and contrasts with translation tools. Clearly identifies the scope and resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly describes when to use (improve organization, fix platform assignments) and when not to use (actual text changes should use translation tools).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states that all group members gain immediate project access (mutation) but does not detail permissions, reversibility, or side effects. Some behavioral context is given, but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences cover action, required params, use cases, and return value. No redundant or unnecessary information. Efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple mutation tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description adequately covers basic usage, effect, and return value. Lacks error handling or rate limit info, but is reasonably complete for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 each parameter. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., reiterating required params) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Adds projects to a user group') and the effect ('granting all group members access to specified projects'). It differentiates from siblings like 'lokalise_add_members_to_group' and 'lokalise_remove_projects_from_group' by specifying the resource (projects) and the group.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit use cases: 'expand group project scope, onboard projects to existing teams, or batch project assignments.' No when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear given the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses performance (up to 1000 keys), required fields, and return format (updated keys and errors), but does not detail side effects like partial failures or atomicity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three tight sentences: purpose, usage/requirements, and return/performance. Every sentence adds value, front-loaded, no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description adequately covers return info. With two parameters and clear usage guidance, it is mostly complete. Minor gap: no mention of field-level partial updates behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. Description restates the required format minimally, adding no new semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'modifies metadata for multiple keys in one operation', specifying the verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'lokalise_update_key' (single key) and 'lokalise_bulk_delete_keys' (delete).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit use cases ('large-scale reorganization, batch platform updates, or systematic tagging') and efficiency guidance ('more efficient than individual updates for 3+ keys'), but does not explicitly name the alternative tool for single updates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses key limit, optional fields, and return structure (IDs and errors). Does not mention permissions, error handling, or idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with action and limit, includes tip and pairing suggestion. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Describes return structure and includes operational tips. Lacks output schema, but description covers basics. Could mention error scenarios or rate limits for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema (e.g., tip about base language translations). Does not explain platform values or tag usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb ('Adds') and resource ('UI text or content to be translated'), with explicit limit of 1000 keys. Distinguishes from siblings like lokalise_create_project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
States when to use: 'new features, initial setup, or content expansion.' Pairs with lokalise_list_keys to verify. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states that the tool initializes a project and returns a Project ID and access details. This is non-destructive creation, but no additional behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, required permissions) are given. Adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences: first covers purpose and parameters, second specifies usage context, third notes returns and next steps. It is concise and front-loaded with essential information, with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, parameters, usage context, and return value. It omits details about the return format but mentions 'Project ID and access details,' which is sufficient for an agent. It also provides next steps, enhancing completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptive schema for each parameter. The description mentions name (required), description and base_lang_iso (optional, default 'en'), but omits the 'languages' array parameter. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, as the schema already provides clear descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it initializes a new localization project, specifies required and optional parameters, and mentions use cases like starting localization for new products or creating test environments. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update, delete, or add languages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use when starting localization for new products or creating test environments.' It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the mention of 'next steps' implies alternatives like adding languages or keys later. Sibling tools exist for updating, so the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 mentions the return value but does not disclose authorization requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects like whether it overwrites existing tasks. The description is adequate but could be more explicit about behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two paragraphs and a tip), front-loaded with purpose and required parameters. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 16 parameters (100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description covers essentials: required params, return value, and a usage tip. It is fairly complete for a create operation, though it could mention the returned task structure in more detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists required and optional parameters but adds only one minor tip about assignees. It does not provide additional meaning beyond what is in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it initiates a new batch of translation or review work, listing required and optional parameters and what it returns. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lokalise_create_keys or lokalise_create_project by focusing on task creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear use cases: assign work to translators, set deadlines, organize sprints. It includes a tip for using assignees for simple setups. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though no direct alternative exists among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool creates a resource and returns group details, but lacks details on permissions, idempotency, or side effects beyond creation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences: purpose, parameter listing, use cases, and return. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter roles, use cases, and return. It could mention preconditions like admin rights, but is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description lists required and optional parameters but adds no meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions, which are already clear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 user group in a Lokalise team, specifying the verb 'creates' and resource 'user group'. It lists required and optional parameters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update or delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit use cases ('role-based access control, organize team permissions, set up project-specific groups'), but does not mention when to use alternatives like update or delete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It conveys the destructive action (removes) and required parameters, but lacks details on irreversibility, permission requirements, or side effects beyond a success message.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with three short sentences, each adding value. No fluff, and the core action is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the action, required params, and return value. Slight improvement could detail the success message format, but overall sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both teamId and userId. The description only restates that they are required, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Removes a user from a Lokalise team' with specific verb and resource, and adds use cases like 'remove members, clean up permissions, or manage team structure'. It is distinct from sibling tools such as get_team_user, update_team_user, or remove_contributor.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for use (removing members, cleaning up permissions, managing team structure) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., update_team_user for role changes).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It describes the tool as retrieving information and specifies the return content ('Full contributor profile including all language permissions and administrative rights'). It does not mention side effects, but since it is a read operation, this is adequate for transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of three concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, required parameters, and return value. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (2 required params, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context about the output. It mentions the return content in enough detail to set expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters described. The description adds that the parameters are 'Required', which is already indicated in the schema. No additional semantic meaning beyond the schema is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieves detailed information') and the resource ('specific team member's access and permissions'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like lokalise_list_contributors (list all) and lokalise_update_contributor (update).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit use cases: 'verify exact permissions before updates, investigate access issues, or get complete language assignments.' It implies when to use this over alternatives, but does not explicitly state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description relies on the verb 'Examines' to imply read-only behavior. It does not explicitly disclose its non-destructive nature, auth requirements, or other behavioral traits. The implication is sufficient but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with four sentences, each serving a clear purpose: purpose, required params, use cases, and return details. It is front-loaded and lacks unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value by listing ISO codes, plural forms, and writing direction. It covers required params and use cases. Minor gaps exist (e.g., error handling), but the tool is simple.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no new information beyond restating the required parameters. Therefore, it meets the baseline without adding extra meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Examines detailed settings for a specific project language,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this read-only tool from siblings like 'lokalise_list_project_languages' and 'lokalise_update_language' by emphasizing detailed examination of a single language.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit use cases: 'Use to verify plural rules, check RTL configuration, or understand custom settings.' It also highlights relevance for complex languages. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation and lists return fields, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four concise sentences, each adding value: summary, required params, use cases, return value. Well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a get-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, inputs, and returns but omits error handling and behavior of the optional disableReferences parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds context by noting required parameters and implying translationId must be a single ID, but does not extend beyond schema details significantly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Examines' and identifies the resource as 'a single piece of translated text,' clearly differentiating from sibling tools like get_key or list_translations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit use cases ('check exact wording, review status, modification history, investigate QA issues'), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It states 'Only changes metadata' and mentions return of updated details, but lacks info on permissions, idempotency, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Five sentences, front-loaded with action and required params. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple metadata update tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return. Could mention if updates are immediate or require additional steps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%; description reinforces required/optional fields but adds no extra constraints or formatting details beyond what schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Modifies' and the resource 'project settings and metadata', listing specific fields (name, description) and distinguishing from content/language changes via the note.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states use cases: rename, update descriptions, fix project information. The note 'use other tools for content/language changes' provides clear exclusion, but no alternative tools are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the update action and return value. It does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, or whether the change is reversible, which is lacking for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and required fields, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description mentions the return value. The tool is simple with 3 required parameters, and the description sufficiently covers purpose, parameters, and outcome. It falls short only in behavioral transparency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage for parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing required parameters and enumerating the role options, plus describes the return value as 'Updated user profile with new role and permissions,' providing context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it updates a team user's role, lists the valid roles (owner, admin, member, biller), and distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_team_user or get_team_user by focusing on role changes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly says 'Use to manage permissions, promote/demote, or adjust access levels,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives such as using a different endpoint for bulk updates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 discloses that changes are visible immediately to all users, which is a key trait. However, it does not mention permissions, destructive overwrite behavior, or idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and structured logically: main action, required parameters, optional parameters, use cases, return type, and a note on visibility. No extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the well-documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, use cases, and a behavioral note. It lacks error handling or idempotency info but is sufficient for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description summarizes required and optional parameters already defined in the schema. It adds minimal value beyond clarifying which parameters map to which functionality and noting the return type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'modifies' and the resource 'actual translated text or its review status'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like lokalise_update_key by specifying translation-specific operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists required and optional parameters and provides example use cases (fix typos, approve translations, mark problematic content). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like lokalise_bulk_update_translations, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States immediate effect: 'Members immediately gain group permissions and project access.' Also declares return type. Adequately discloses behavioral traits for this additive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences: intent, required params, usage scenarios, and return/effect. Front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple add operation with no output schema, description covers what it does, required params, return type, and immediate effect. Adequately complete for agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter. Description lists required parameters but adds no new semantic meaning beyond schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as description does not compensate beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states action ('Adds users to a user group') and outcome ('granting them group-based permissions and project access'). Distinguishes from sibling like 'remove_members_from_group' by focusing on adding. Provides specific verb and resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly lists use cases: 'onboard team members, assign role-based access, or batch permission updates.' Provides clear context for when to use, though does not mention when not to use or alternatives like 'add_contributors'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Fetches' details and returns data, implying a read operation. However, it doesn't discuss authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is adequate but could be more explicit about its non-destructive nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is four sentences, each adding value: purpose, required params, use cases, and return description. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, use cases, and return type comprehensively, leaving no significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema (100% coverage) already describes both parameters clearly. The description adds minimal value by restating 'Required: projectId, termId' and mentioning 'by ID'. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Fetches' and resource 'complete details for a single glossary term by ID'. It distinguishes from the sibling list tool by specifying 'single' and 'by ID', and elaborates on use cases like understanding translation rules and viewing language translations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly lists required parameters and provides specific use cases (e.g., 'understand precise translation rules, check case-sensitivity requirements'). It doesn't mention when not to use or name alternatives directly, but the context implies it's for detailed term lookup vs. listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions return data ('complete task data including all assignments, completion percentages, settings, and history') but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or disclose any side effects. Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Highly concise: first sentence states purpose, then required params, then use cases, then return format, finally pairing with sibling. Every sentence is justified and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description adequately explains return data and use cases. It covers the main actions an agent would need for a detail retrieval tool, making it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description only reiterates 'Required: projectId, taskId', adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Investigates' and resource 'specific work assignment' clearly distinguishing it from listing tasks (lokalise_list_tasks). It explicitly mentions retrieving task details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'check task progress, view assignee workload, or debug workflow issues'. Also pairs with lokalise_update_task for modifications, implying not for modifications. Could mention if it's for read-only but still clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses a key behavioral trait: 'All group members lose immediate project access.' This warning adds value beyond the core action. It could further detail permission requirements or reversal possibilities, but the warning is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (three sentences plus separate lines for returns and warning). Information is front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second lists required params. The 'Required:' line is redundant with the schema but aids quick scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 required params and no output schema, the description includes a return type note and a warning about immediate access loss. It does not explain the relationship to the sibling 'add_projects_to_group' tool, but the information provided is sufficient for a simple removal operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats required parameter names but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema descriptions. The use case list provides context for the action but not for individual parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Removes projects from a user group') and its effect ('revoking group member access to specified projects'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'lokalise_add_projects_to_group' and 'lokalise_remove_members_from_group' by specifying the resource (projects) and the target (group).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit use cases ('limit project scope, offboard projects, or restructure access') and lists required parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'lokalise_add_projects_to_group' as the reverse operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It adds value by stating 'Sends invitation emails automatically' and 'Returns: Added contributors with assigned IDs.' However, it does not mention idempotency, error handling, or rate limits, which leaves some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose, then lists requirements and side effects. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, required parameters, return value, and a behavioral note (email sending). For a simple add tool with no complex output schema, it is nearly complete, though missing potential error scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%, but the description adds meaning by summarizing required fields: 'projectId, contributors array with email and permissions (admin_rights, is_reviewer, languages)'. This clarifies the structure beyond the schema's deprecated field descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as onboarding new team members to a project, using the verb 'onboards' and specifying the resource 'contributors to a project'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'lokalise_add_members_to_group' by focusing on projects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit use cases: 'Use for team expansion, granting translator access, or adding reviewers.' It also lists required fields, guiding when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though siblings provide context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden. It discloses performance (~5 updates/second), automatic rate limiting, retries, and return format (success/error per translation). It does not detail idempotency or partial failure handling, but the provided traits are sufficient for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is four sentences, each adding value: first states purpose, second lists requirements, third provides use cases, fourth gives performance and output. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (batch updates with nested array) and full schema coverage, the description covers input constraints, performance, and return format adequately. It omits edge cases but for a batch tool, the provided information is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%. Description summarizes required fields and array limits, but adds only minor clarification (e.g., 'Each update needs translation_id plus changes') beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameters well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it handles batch translation corrections or approvals, using the verb 'processes batch', which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'lokalise_update_translation' (single update). It specifies the resource (translations) and the batch nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists use cases: mass approvals, systematic corrections, importing reviewed content. It outlines required parameters and limits (up to 100 updates) but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives (e.g., single update tool) or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses key behavior: 'Only removes the assignment - keys and translations remain unchanged' and 'Cannot be undone.' Since no annotations exist, this context is valuable. No mention of auth or rate limits, but sufficient for a delete operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences covering purpose, usage, return, and a note. No wasted words, well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequately covers purpose, usage, behavioral impact, and return value for a simple two-parameter tool. Could mention potential errors or who can cancel, but not essential.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). Description adds no extra meaning beyond listing required parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Cancels a work assignment, removing it from assignee queues,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from other delete tools (e.g., delete key, delete comment) by focusing on tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit use cases: 'Use to cancel mistaken tasks, clean completed work, or remove test assignments.' However, it does not mention when not to use or alternatives like updating a task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description fully discloses the effect: removes all keys and translations while keeping languages, team, and configuration. It also mentions returning an operation confirmation. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value: purpose, required param, use cases, return, effect, and safety comparison. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple reset tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, effect, and alternatives. It could be slightly more complete by noting irreversibility or async behavior, but it is sufficient for the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'projectId' is documented in the schema with description 'Project ID to empty'. The description reiterates it as required but adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, which has 100% coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it resets project content while preserving settings and team, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_project which would remove the entire project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit use cases are given (major refactoring, starting fresh, clearing test data), and it is described as a safer alternative to deletion, implying scenarios where deletion would be inappropriate. However, it does not explicitly exclude other alternatives like bulk_delete_keys.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Discloses returned content: complete text, metadata, author details, creation time. Read-only nature implied. Does not mention auth or rate limits, but adequate for a simple getter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences: purpose, usage conditions, return value. Front-loaded with key information. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers essential aspects: what it does, when to use, what it returns. Lacks mention of error behavior or validity of IDs, but given no output schema or annotations, it is fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds 'Required:' label and context that commentId is used to get details, but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Gets full details of a single comment', specifying verb and resource. Distinguishes from list operations by mentioning truncation in list view and pairs with delete comment for management. Explicitly lists required parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use: 'when comment text was truncated in list view or to get exact timestamps'. Mentions pairing with delete comment. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives among list comment siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It accurately describes that the tool returns full key data including translations, platforms, tags, comments, and history. It implicitly indicates a read operation, but does not explicitly state read-only or mention permissions or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise: two sentences plus a list of returned fields. The first sentence immediately conveys the purpose and scope. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and simple parameters, the description covers main functionality, return content, and use cases. However, it lacks mention of error conditions, authentication, or any potential side effects, leaving minor gaps in behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description only repeats that projectId and keyId are required, adding no additional semantics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since no extra value is provided beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verbs ('deep-dives', 'investigate', 'debug') and clearly identifies the resource as a single content item. It distinguishes from sibling listing tools like lokalise_list_keys by emphasizing 'single item' and 'complete state'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear use cases such as investigating translation status, viewing language versions, and debugging. It states when to use (before targeted updates) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or list when not to use, though it's implied by the single-item focus.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It mentions required and optional parameters and what is returned (metadata, team info, language progress, key statistics). However, it does not disclose error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which are relevant for a retrieval tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and required parameter, followed by use cases and return summary. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately outlines return types (metadata, team info, language progress, key statistics) and explains optional parameters. It omits potential caveats like pagination (likely irrelevant) or error handling, but covers essential needs for a project status assessment tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of optional parameters: 'includeLanguages (completion rates)' and 'includeKeysSummary (content stats)', which clarifies their role beyond the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Deep analysis of a single project's health and configuration', specifying the verb (analyze) and resource (single project). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_projects by emphasizing deep analysis of one project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises using the tool for 'project audits, progress reports, or understanding structure', providing clear use cases. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context of sibling tool names implies a single-project deep dive versus listing or modification tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description carries the burden. It clearly states the tool is a read operation returning 'complete process details with logs and status history'. Could be improved by noting no side effects or error scenarios, but adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences front-loading purpose and usage. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description mentions return content. The tool has only two simple parameters. Provides sufficient context for selection and use, though could briefly note read-only nature.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with good descriptions. The description repeats 'Required: projectId, processId' but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'gets' and the resource 'specific async process' with examples like upload/download. It implies distinction from listing by using 'specific' and provides a clear purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly lists use cases: 'check process completion, diagnose failures, or get detailed progress information.' It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but contextually distinguishes from list siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 clearly states this is a read operation and describes the return value ('Complete user profile with all team permissions...'). It does not mention authentication requirements or potential error conditions, which would enhance transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: three sentences that effectively front-load purpose, required parameters, and use cases, followed by what is returned. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the essentials: purpose, required inputs, intended uses, and return value. It could be improved by mentioning access control or error scenarios, but overall it is fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the required parameters ('teamId, userId') but adds no additional meaning, format hints, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Gets detailed information') and the resource ('a specific user in a team'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'lokalise_get_contributor' or 'lokalise_get_usergroup' by specifying it is for team users.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes explicit use cases: 'verify user permissions, check role assignments, or investigate access issues.' However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, leaving room for improvement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description shoulders full transparency. It states the return includes 'admin rights, language permissions, and assigned projects/members' and implies read-only behavior. Does not explicitly state no side effects, but the verb 'gets' is strong enough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by required params, use cases, and return details. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return details. Could mention error handling, but not critical. Slightly above adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds 'Required: teamId, groupId' but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Gets detailed information' and the resource 'user group'. It lists specific details included (members, permissions, project assignments), distinguishing it from sibling CRUD tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit use cases: 'Use to audit group configuration, verify member access, or understand permission structure.' Also notes required parameters. Does not mention when to avoid or list alternatives, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. States returned fields (email, role, admin status, language permissions) and implies read-only. Does not mention error behavior or rate limits, but adequate for a list tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three well-structured sentences. Each sentence serves a purpose: purpose, parameters, use cases, return details. No redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so description explains return fields and use cases. Covers what tool does, how to use, and what to expect. Could mention pagination details or error handling, but sufficient for typical usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions. Description repeats required/optional info and adds defaults and pagination hint, but does not add significant new semantics beyond schema. Baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists team members (contributors) with roles and permissions. The verb 'Lists' is specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like add/remove/update contributors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit use cases: audit access, check assignments, prepare changes, avoid duplicates before adding. Implicitly contrasts with add tool, but does not name alternative explicitly. Good context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions paginated retrieval and parameters, but does not state read-only nature, permission requirements, or rate limits. It is adequate but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each purposeful: purpose and parameters, use case, return content and importance. No wasted words, well front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, return content (properties and translations), and usage recommendation. It could detail the response structure more, but it is fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by noting the default for limit and explaining cursor comes from nextCursor in the previous response, enhancing understanding beyond the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves paginated glossary terms for translation consistency, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, update glossary terms, and other list endpoints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly recommends using before translating to prevent errors and implies a discovery use case, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool supports bulk updates and that changes apply immediately, which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not detail potential side effects, permission requirements, or other nuances beyond the immediate update.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three sentences, with the most critical information (action, required fields, purposes) front-loaded. No redundant or extraneous content is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description still mentions the return of updated terms, which suffices. The input schema is well-documented, and the description covers the main usage context. A minor gap is the lack of mention about any constraints or limits on bulk updates, but overall it is complete for a modification tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds value by explaining the required structure of the 'terms' array and summarizing what fields can be updated (definitions, translations, rules). This helps the agent understand the purpose of each parameter beyond just their schema definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it modifies existing glossary terms, specifying both the resource and action. It also lists required fields and mentions the ability to refine definitions, add translations, and adjust rules, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create or delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit use cases (refine definitions, add translations, adjust rules) and notes required parameters. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the mention of required fields and the context of bulk updates gives clear guidance, and sibling tools offer alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description states changes affect translations but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or destructive potential. More transparency needed for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with action, no redundant information. Efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Moderate complexity tool with no output schema. Description includes return type and effect on translations. Missing prerequisites like permissions, but overall adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing optional fields and providing context on when to use each (e.g., 'fix incorrect configurations').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it modifies language settings within a project, listing the required and optional fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add or remove language.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit use cases (fix configurations, customize names, adjust plural rules) and lists required vs optional parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 discloses mutation behavior, a constraint (cannot change type), and side effects (notifies assignees). However, it does not cover authorization needs, rate limits, or idempotency, which is a gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences with clear front-loading: purpose, required params, optional uses, and a constraint/note. Every sentence adds essential information with no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters and nested objects, the description covers the action, required params, optional fields, a constraint, and the return value ('Updated task details'). It could mention partial update behavior explicitly, but it's sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by grouping optional fields (title, description, due_date, etc.) and stating their purpose. This helps the agent understand the tool's flexibility beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool modifies an active work assignment (verb + resource) and lists required params. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_task' or 'delete_task' by focusing on updates and mentioning constraints like 'Cannot change task type after creation.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit use cases ('extend deadlines, reassign work, or update scope') and a constraint ('Cannot change task type after creation'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool suggestions, but the usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Provides warning about immediate permission loss and return value. No annotations present, so description carries full burden. Good disclosure of destructive behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with no redundancy: purpose, usage, and warning/return. Front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, when to use, required params, behavioral consequence, and return value. Complete for a simple delete tool with no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%; description repeats 'Required: teamId, groupId' but adds no additional meaning beyond schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Deletes a user group' with specific verb and resource, and adds scope 'from a Lokalise team'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like create/update/get.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit use cases given: 'cleanup, removing obsolete groups, or restructuring team organization'. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full weight. It discloses that the tool performs a read operation (checks, returns) and specifies required parameters and return value. It does not mention side effects (none expected) or authentication needs, but behavioral transparency is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage guidance and return info. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, required parameter, usage context, and return value fully. Nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the description only reiterates that projectId is required. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's own description, meeting the baseline for full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verbs like 'Checks' and 'verify' and clearly identifies the resource as the current user's permissions and access level in a project. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'lokalise_get_contributor' which presumably fetches other users.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use: before attempting restricted operations, to verify administrative capabilities, check language access, or confirm reviewer status. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, but the description states it returns a paginated list with author, timestamp, and content. Since it is a read-only retrieval, no destructive behavior is expected, and the description adequately conveys the basic behavior without contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then parameters, then use cases. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description explains the return format (paginated list with author, timestamp, content). The tool is simple and the description covers all necessary context for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by restating required/optional fields and default values, but does not provide new meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Retrieves all comments for a specific translation key,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning pairing with lokalise_create_comments, and context implies it is for a single key, different from projekt-level listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says when to use: 'Use this to review translator questions, see implementation notes, or audit collaboration.' It lists required and optional parameters and mentions a paired tool, but does not exclude alternatives or specify when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description compensates by stating it returns project names, IDs, base language, and stats, and that includeStats 'adds progress/QA data'. It implies a read-only operation (listing) with no destructive behavior mentioned, providing sufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with 4 short sentences, each adding value: purpose, parameters, use cases, return info, and guidance. No wasted words; front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers return fields, optional features (stats), and usage context. No missing critical information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor rephrasing: 'limit (100), page, includeStats (adds progress/QA data)'. It reinforces default values but does not significantly enrich the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it's a 'Portfolio overview showing all accessible localization projects', uses specific verbs and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by positioning it as an entry point before diving into specific projects. It also lists use cases like discovering projects, assessing translation health, and finding project IDs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage context: 'Use as entry point to discover projects, assess translation health, or find specific project IDs' and 'Start here before diving into specific projects.' It implies when not to use (for specific project details, use other tools) but does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description fully handles behavioral context. It describes the return data (ISO codes, native names, RTL status, plural forms) and states it is 'Essential before adding new target languages,' indicating a read-only, non-destructive action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences that are front-loaded, clear, and free of extraneous information. Every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, use cases, and return value summary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned and why it matters. It covers all relevant context: use cases, parameters, and return fields, making it complete for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds 'Optional: limit (100), page,' reinforcing defaults but not adding meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Discovers all languages available in Lokalise platform' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'lokalise_list_project_languages' by clarifying it returns platform-level languages, not project-specific ones.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly lists when to use: 'before project setup, verify language codes, or check RTL/plural form support.' It implies not to use for project-specific language queries, but does not name alternative sibling tools directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 discloses that the tool returns users with roles, permissions, and activity status, and mentions pagination support. This covers the essential behavior for a list operation. The description is honest about what it does without hiding side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences: first states purpose, second lists parameters, third gives use cases and return summary. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler or redundant phrases.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a simple list with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, required and optional parameters, use cases, and the nature of the return data. It is complete for an agent to understand when and how to invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already clearly defines the parameters. The description restates the required (teamId) and optional (limit, page) parameters but does not add significant semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. The context of use cases (audit, check access) adds some value but not for parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Lists all users in a Lokalise team with pagination support,' clearly specifying a verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'lokalise_get_team_user' (single user) by focusing on listing all users, and from 'lokalise_add_members_to_group' (adding users) by being a read operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context: 'Use to audit team composition, check access levels, or prepare team changes.' It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the use cases and required/optional parameters give implicit guidance. Sibling tools like 'lokalise_get_team_user' offer alternative for single-user queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Warns of immediate effect and permission revocation. No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden; it adequately discloses consequences and return type.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences: action, requirements, use cases, return, warning. Front-loaded and efficient with no redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, required params, use cases, return value, and warning. No output schema needed; description is complete for this simple mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description reiterates required parameters but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool removes users from a user group, with specific verbs 'Removes' and 'revoking', and distinguishes from siblings like add_members_to_group and remove_projects_from_group.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly lists use cases: 'Use for role changes, offboarding, or permission cleanup.' Does not provide negative use cases, but context is clear with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Clearly states permanence ('cannot be undone') and includes a warning and consideration to archive discussions. Since no annotations exist, the description fully covers destructive nature and return value ('Confirmation of deletion').
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is structured with clear sections (purpose, required params, use cases, return, warning) but is slightly verbose with five sentences. Still, it is front-loaded with the primary action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with three required parameters and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context: purpose, required IDs, use cases, return type, and irreversible consequence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description redundantly lists required parameters but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'removes' and the resource 'specific comment from a translation key', distinguishing it from other delete tools (e.g., delete_key, delete_project) by specifying the context of comments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit use cases: 'clean up resolved discussions, remove outdated information, or delete accidental comments'. However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives like get_comment or list_comments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description discloses that the tool deletes all term translations and rules, and supports bulk deletion. It doesn't cover permissions or rate limits, but for a delete operation this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Five short sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, required params, use cases, return, warning, and alternative. Minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description includes return type ('Deletion confirmation'). Covers purpose, usage, warnings, and alternatives. For a simple delete tool with two parameters, it's sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are described. The description adds value by stating that termIds supports bulk deletion (array of numbers) and reinforces requirement. Provides context beyond schema without duplication.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Removes obsolete or incorrect glossary entries' with specific verb and resource. It lists required parameters and mentions deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'lokalise_update_glossary_terms', though the alternative is hinted.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use ('clean up outdated terminology, remove duplicates, or fix mistakes') and provides a caution ('Consider updating instead of deleting for audit trail'). Also notes bulk deletion support and warns about removing translations and rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description covers irreversibility, permanent deletion of keys and translations, and mentions the return type. Could be slightly more specific on result details, but sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences total: purpose, required params, use cases, return, and warning. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, when to use, required params, irreversibility, and return type. Complete for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so schema already documents parameters. Description repeats 'Required: projectId, keyIds array' but adds no new meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Large-scale cleanup removing multiple obsolete keys permanently.' Distinguishes from siblings like lokalise_delete_key (single key) and bulk_update_keys (update vs delete).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'For removing deprecated feature sets, post-refactoring cleanup, or major content pruning.' Provides critical warning about irreversibility and advises verifying key list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses immediate effect, permanent access loss, and that it returns confirmation. Lacks details on error handling or idempotency but is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences: action, required params + return, use cases + warning. No fluff, front-loaded with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, it states return type (confirmation). Covers purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral impact fully. No gaps for a simple removal tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. Description reiterates that they are required but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool removes a team member from a project and revokes all access. This specific verb+resource clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_contributor or add_contributors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit use cases (offboarding, security cleanup, removing inactive members) and an alternative suggestion (permission downgrade for temporary changes). Also specifies required parameters and return value.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses the most critical behavior: 'Critical Warning: Permanently deletes ALL translations for this language. Export translations first if needed.' This fully informs the agent of the irreversible destructive nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences covering purpose, usage, and a critical warning. No redundant information, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple removal tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: operation, when to use, required params, return value, and a crucial warning about data loss. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, only listing the required params. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already carries the semantic load.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Drops support for a language by removing it from the project') with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'update_language' or 'delete_project'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage context: 'Use when discontinuing localization for a market or cleaning up test languages.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description fully covers behavior: 'Permanently removes', 'Irreversible – all translations lost', returns confirmation. Discloses destructive nature and required parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and requirements. Each sentence adds value: purpose, use case, warning, alternative. Slightly verbose but efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description mentions return value. Covers all necessary context: irreversibility, parameter requirements, use cases, alternative for multiple keys. Complete for a simple delete tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters. Description restates required params but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what schema already provides. Adequate but not extra.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb ('removes') + resource ('obsolete content and all its translations'). Distinguishes from sibling 'bulk delete' by explicitly mentioning it for multiple keys. Use cases provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use (removing deprecated features, cleaning typos) and when not (multiple keys – use bulk delete). Includes warning about irreversibility and suggestion to archive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Although no annotations are provided, the description accurately states the tool modifies the group and returns the updated configuration. It discloses what the tool does not do (projects/members) but lacks details on error handling or side effects. Overall, it is transparent for a simple update operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: action/params, usage context, and limitation. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an update tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains the task, required inputs, and returned configuration. It does not cover permissions or error scenarios but is sufficient for a typical update operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping required and optional parameters and explaining the intended use (adjusting permissions, etc.), enhancing understanding beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates a user group's properties, lists the relevant fields (permissions, assignments), and explicitly notes that it cannot modify projects/members, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_members_to_group'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit when-to-use context ('adjust group permissions, modify access levels, or reorganize team structure') and a clear when-not-to-use with an alternative ('Cannot modify projects/members here - use dedicated tools').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the destructive nature: 'Permanently destroys', 'Irreversible', 'deletes all keys, translations, history, and team assignments'. It includes a critical warning.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with only 4 sentences, each providing essential information. It is front-loaded with the action and warning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all necessary context: action, impact, prerequisites, and alternative. It is complete for decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description only repeats 'Required: projectId' which is already in the schema, adding no new semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'permanently destroys a project and ALL its data', specifying the resource (project) and irreversibility. It also distinguishes from the sibling 'lokalise_empty_project' by mentioning 'Consider emptying instead'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit use cases are given: 'for removing test projects or discontinued products'. It also advises when not to use: 'Export data first if needed' and provides an alternative: 'Consider emptying instead'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![lokalise-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AbdallahAHO/lokalise-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AbdallahAHO/lokalise-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![lokalise-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AbdallahAHO/lokalise-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AbdallahAHO/lokalise-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AbdallahAHO/lokalise-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server