Brawler MCP Server (Python)

Locale

locale

Set a language code as a locale hint so MCP clients can run tools with the intended language context.

Instructions

Locale hint that takes a language code.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "language": "<language>"
    },
    "name": "locale"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`language`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about side effects, whether the locale persists, or whether the value is validated. 'Hint' gestures at non-destructive behavior but that is inference, not disclosure.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is structurally fine. The problem is under-specification rather than verbiage — three words of content cannot carry the meaning needed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

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 need not be explained, and there is only one parameter. Even against that low bar, the description omits the code format and any indication of effect, leaving an agent unable to call it confidently beyond guessing.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required 'language' parameter, so the description must compensate and only partially does: it says 'language code', which hints at a code rather than a free-text name. It gives no format (ISO 639-1 vs BCP-47), no examples, and no case/validation rules.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description largely restates the tool name ('Locale') and adds only that it is a 'hint' taking a 'language code'. It never says what the tool actually does — whether it sets a locale, echoes it back, or records it — and gives no way to distinguish it from siblings such as 'tagged_eval' or 'style'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The word 'hint' loosely implies contextual/optional usage, but there is no statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. With ~19 siblings and no routing guidance, an agent has nothing to select on.

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

Deploy Server