Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tolgee-mcp

tolgee-mcp

by ytarfa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

update_key

Rename a localization key in a Tolgee project. Provide project ID, key ID, and new name.

Instructions

Update a localization key's name.

Args:
    project_id: The numeric ID of the project.
    key_id: The numeric ID of the key to update.
    name: The new name for the key.

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>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "update_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes
key_idYes
nameYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

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 disclose all behavioral traits. It states the update action but does not mention side effects (e.g., impact on translations), required permissions, or constraints like name uniqueness. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section is a bit redundant with the schema, but overall it is efficient with no unnecessary words. Could be slightly more concise.

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?

With 3 parameters all documented and an output schema present (not shown), the description covers the basics. However, it lacks contextual details like common errors, validation rules (e.g., name format), or whether the key must exist. Falls short of full completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains each parameter: project_id (numeric project ID), key_id (numeric key ID), name (new name for the key). This provides clear semantics beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 'Update a localization key's name,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_key' (which creates) and 'delete_keys' (which deletes), so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage when renaming a key but lacks explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to create a new key instead. No exclusions or prerequisites are 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