Manage translation files in a Godot project by listing, adding, or removing them. Specify the project path and action to keep localization assets organized.
List/add/remove translation files in project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Action: list, add, remove | |
| projectPath | Yes | Godot project path | |
| translationPath | No | Translation file path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies add/remove operations are file mutations, but doesn't disclose side effects, whether project configuration files are modified, prerequisites (e.g., valid Godot project), or failure behavior. For a tool with potentially destructive actions, this 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action verbs and clearly names the resource. However, it is terse to the point of omitting useful context, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It lacks usage context, parameter interplay, and behavioral disclosure. An agent would not know how to invoke this correctly for each action, nor what to expect in return, and cannot differentiate it well from similar management tools.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it just paraphrases the action field. It doesn't clarify that translationPath is only needed for add/remove, but the schema already marks it optional, so no information is missing beyond what's structural.
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?
The description 'List/add/remove translation files in project' uses a specific verb set and identifies the resource (translation files) and scope (project). It clearly states what the tool does, but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like game_locale or manage_resource, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. It doesn't explain when to use 'list' vs 'add' vs 'remove', or when manage_translations is preferred over game_locale or other manage_* tools. The usage context is entirely absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.