texterify-mcp

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

With annotations covering read-only/idempotent safety, the description adds valuable domain context: detailed response structure (data, included, meta.total), explains that is_default marks the primary language, and clarifies that progress is a 0-100 percentage of translated keys.

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?

Well-structured with clear sentence ordering: purpose → usage → response details. The detailed response documentation is necessary given the absence of an output schema, though slightly dense.

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?

Complete for a read-only list operation: explains domain concepts (translation progress, default language), pagination behavior via meta.total, and compensates for the missing output schema by detailing response contents.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all four parameters including where to find project_id and pagination logic. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List languages configured in the Texterify project'), clarifies the scope (Texterify project), and distinguishes purpose by mentioning its relationship to set_translation and translation progress checking.

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?

Explicitly states two use cases: 'to get language IDs required by set_translation' and 'to check translation progress per language.' However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling list operations like list_projects or list_keys.

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