Run 'pnpm check' to verify i18n translation completeness in a specified directory. Identify missing or incomplete translations across locales.
Run 'pnpm check' in the specified directory to check i18n translation status. Use this when user wants to verify translation completeness.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | Working directory to run the command in. Defaults to the current working directory. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that it executes `pnpm check` in a given directory and frames it as a status check. With no annotations provided, this gives some insight into the side-effect profile, but it does not describe output, failure behavior, or whether any files are modified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with the command and purpose front-loaded. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-optional-parameter command tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, where it runs, and when to use it. No essential detail for correct invocation appears to be missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully documents the only parameter (`cwd`) with its default behavior, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little beyond confirming that the check runs in the specified directory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly identifies the action (run `pnpm check`), the target (specified directory), and the goal (check i18n translation status). It is easily distinguished from siblings `translate_page` and `show_glossary`, which perform translation or glossary tasks rather than verification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
States an explicit trigger: use when the user wants to verify translation completeness. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, so it stops short of a full when/when-not comparison with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.