horizon_get_all_localizationsRetrieve all localized strings from horizOn, optionally filtered by a specific language, to populate in-game text and support multilingual app content.
Gets all localized strings from horizOn, optionally for a specific language.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | ISO 639-1 language code (2 characters). One of: en, de, es, fr, it, pt, nl, pl, ru, ja, zh, ar, ko, tr, id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully clarifies the default behavior (returns all strings unless a language is given), but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or return shape. Adequate for a plain read getter, but thin given the absence of annotations.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though minimal enough that it borders on under-specification rather than exemplifying rich conciseness.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only behavioral source, yet it does not describe the returned structure or volume. For a simple getter with one fully-documented optional param this is minimally sufficient, but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the lang parameter is fully documented in-schema with its enum of ISO codes, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only confirms that the filter is optional, adding marginal value beyond the structured field.
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?
States a specific verb (Gets) and resource (all localized strings), and the 'all' plus optional language qualifier signals scope. It does not name the sibling horizon_get_localization/horizon_get_localization_languages, leaving the distinction (all vs. one string) to inference.
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?
'optionally for a specific language' implies when the lang parameter applies, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over horizon_get_localization or horizon_get_localization_languages, and no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.