tolgee-mcp

by ytarfa

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

tag_key

Tag a localization key, creating the tag if it doesn't exist, to organize keys for efficient filtering.

Instructions

Add a tag to a localization key. Creates the tag if it doesn't exist.

Args:
    project_id: The numeric ID of the project.
    key_id: The numeric ID of the key to tag.
    tag_name: The name of the tag to add.

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_id": "<key_id>",
      "tag_name": "<tag_name>"
    },
    "name": "tag_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes
`key_id`	Yes
`tag_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description partially reveals behavior (tag creation if absent) but omits details like whether multiple tags can be added at once, permission requirements, or side effects on existing tags.

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 short and includes an Args section for parameter details. It is front-loaded with the core action, though some minor redundancy exists.

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?

Given the simple parameters and existing output schema, the description covers the essential aspects of the operation. It lacks mention of return values or error handling, but that may be covered by the output schema.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides a clear one-line explanation for each parameter (project_id, key_id, tag_name), adding meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 action (add a tag to a localization key) and the behavior (creates tag if it doesn't exist), distinguishing it from the sibling 'remove_tag_from_key'. However, it could be more specific about the concept of 'tag'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_key' or 'list_tags'. No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for proper selection.

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