tolgee-mcp

by ytarfa

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

update_namespace

Updates the name of a namespace in a Tolgee project. Specify the project and namespace IDs along with the new name.

Instructions

Rename a namespace in a Tolgee project.

Args:
    project_id: The numeric ID of the project.
    namespace_id: The numeric ID of the namespace to rename.
    name: The new name for the namespace.

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>",
      "namespace_id": "<namespace_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "update_namespace"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes
`namespace_id`	Yes
`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

C2.8/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or requires authorization. The description only lists parameters without additional context.

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-loads the purpose. However, the args list is somewhat repetitive and could be more concise. Overall, it is efficient but not maximally concise.

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 that there is an output schema (not shown) and 3 parameters, the description is minimal. It omits expected output, constraints (e.g., name uniqueness), error conditions, and any side effects. Without annotations, this is inadequate.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It adds minimal context (e.g., 'The numeric ID of the project'), but essentially restates the parameter names. This is insufficient to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Rename a namespace in a Tolgee project', specifying the action (rename) and the resource (namespace). It is distinct from sibling tools, none of which modify namespaces.

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, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Sibling tools like create_key or update_language are not differentiated in usage context.

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