verbaly

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Save translations an agent wrote

verbaly_write_drafts

Save your own translations as drafts: each entry is validated for parameters, rich tags and plural cases, written only for existing source keys, then held for human review.

Instructions

Save translations you wrote yourself, so neither a catalog nor the state file is ever edited by hand. Each one is checked the way verbaly translate checks a provider (params, rich tags and plural cases must survive), written only for keys the source catalog has, and marked as a draft awaiting human review. Existing translations are kept unless overwrite is set, which is how an outdated one gets rewritten. Approving is not a tool here: a human runs verbaly review --approve.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`root`	No	Project root holding verbaly.config (defaults to the server working directory)
`locale`	Yes	Target locale, one of the project's non-source locales
`entries`	Yes	The translations, by catalog key
`overwrite`	No	Replace translations that already exist, for example outdated ones

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kept`	Yes	Already translated, left as they were (overwrite replaces them)
`invalid`	Yes	Rejected: empty, or the params, tags or plural cases were not preserved
`unknown`	Yes	Not in the source catalog, so nothing was written
`written`	Yes	Saved as drafts, a human still has to approve them

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: validation rules (params, rich tags, plural cases must survive), key-scoping to the source catalog, draft-marking awaiting human review, preserve-unless-overwrite semantics, and the approval path being a CLI command.

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 the action, with no filler. Each sentence contributes a distinct fact: purpose, validation/scope, and overwrite/approval behavior.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. Given a mutation tool with no annotations, the description still covers validation, scope, draft state, overwrite, and the human approval handoff — everything needed to call it correctly.

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, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: overwrite is framed as the mechanism for rewriting outdated translations, and entries are constrained to keys that exist in the source catalog.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: saving agent-authored translations as drafts. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from verbaly_translate by noting the same checks that `verbaly translate` applies, and clarifies it does not create approved 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?

Clear context for when to use: you wrote the translations yourself, and overwrite is the path for replacing outdated ones. It also explicitly excludes approval ("Approving is not a tool here"), though it doesn't name sibling tools like verbaly_drafts or verbaly_translate directly.

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

Deploy Server