tolgee-mcp

by ytarfa

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

set_translation_state

Update the workflow state of a translation to untranslated, translated, or reviewed using project and translation IDs.

Instructions

Set the state of a specific translation.

Args:
    project_id: The numeric ID of the project.
    translation_id: The numeric ID of the translation (not the key ID).
    state: The new state. Valid values: "UNTRANSLATED", "TRANSLATED", "REVIEWED".

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>",
      "translation_id": "<translation_id>",
      "state": "<state>"
    },
    "name": "set_translation_state"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes
`translation_id`	Yes
`state`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It lacks details on idempotency, side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing state), or what happens on invalid input. The presence of an output schema is not mentioned.

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 description is clear and well-structured, but the 'Args' section adds verbosity. Could be more concise while retaining clarity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the complexity (3 required params, mutation) and absence of annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention return value, error behavior, or output schema, which would aid agent decision-making.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates by explaining all three parameters: clarifies translation_id is not key ID, and lists valid state values. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though some numeric parameter constraints are missing.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'state of a specific translation', distinguishing it from batch tools like set_translations. It also lists valid states.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions valid states but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_translations. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are given, leaving some ambiguity.

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