Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tolgee-mcp

tolgee-mcp

by ytarfa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

delete_keys

Remove specific localization keys from a Tolgee project by providing the project ID and a list of key IDs to delete.

Instructions

Delete one or more localization keys from a Tolgee project.

Args:
    project_id: The numeric ID of the project.
    key_ids: List of key IDs to delete.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "key_ids": "<key_ids>"
    },
    "name": "delete_keys"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes
key_idsYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It only states 'Delete' with no details on consequences, irreversibility, permissions, or side effects. For a destructive tool, this is insufficient.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Extremely concise: two sentences plus bullet-style Args. No extraneous information; every word serves a purpose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given complexity (delete operation) and presence of output schema (not described), the description omits return value, idempotency, and differentiation from siblings. Parameter descriptions are sparse, leaving gaps for agent decision-making.

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?

Schema has 0% description coverage, so description adds value by naming parameters: 'project_id: numeric ID' and 'key_ids: list of key IDs'. Explanations are minimal but cover required fields, though lacking depth (e.g., how to obtain key IDs).

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states 'Delete one or more localization keys from a Tolgee project', specifying the verb (delete) and resource (localization keys). Among sibling tools like delete_language and delete_project, it distinctly identifies the target resource.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_project or update_key. No mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or conditions for appropriate use.

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