Skip to main content
Glama
hsiangjenli

mcp-polib

by hsiangjenli
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

find_fuzzy

Identify every entry flagged as fuzzy in a PO file by supplying its absolute path, then get a JSON list of those entries for review.

Instructions

List every entry flagged as fuzzy in the provided PO file.

Responses:

  • 200 (Success): Successful Response

    • Content-Type: application/json

    • Response Properties:

      • entries: List of fuzzy entries found in the PO file.

    • Example:

{
  "entries": [
    "unknown_type"
  ]
}

  • 422: Validation Error

    • Content-Type: application/json

    • Response Properties:

    • Example:

{
  "detail": [
    "unknown_type"
  ]
}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYesAbsolute path to the .po file to read.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entriesYesList of fuzzy entries found in the PO file.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.9.5

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool lists fuzzy entries and provides response details, but does not explicitly mention that it performs no mutation, whether an empty list is returned when no fuzzy entries exist, or how missing files are handled.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening sentence is concise and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's core action. The response documentation is structured and useful, though it repeats some information that an output schema would already provide.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read-style tool, the description covers the main behavior and response shape. It is largely complete, but could benefit from explicit notes about empty results and file-not-found behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already fully documents file_path as 'Absolute path to the .po file to read' at 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'PO file', and the filtering condition 'flagged as fuzzy'. It distinguishes the tool's purpose from generic PO readers, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tools.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over read_po, read_po_context, or write_po. The use case is only implied by the word 'fuzzy', with no alternatives or exclusions mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools