Add a new language to a Tolgee project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | Yes | Language tag / IETF BCP 47 code (e.g. 'de') | |
| name | Yes | Language display name (e.g. 'German') | |
| flagEmoji | No | Flag emoji for this language | |
| projectId | No | ID of the project (required for PAT, auto-resolved for PAK) | |
| originalName | No | Native name of the language (e.g. 'Deutsch') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('add a new language') without revealing side effects, authentication requirements, error behavior, or idempotency. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is succinct and has no wasted words. It clearly conveys the core action in the fewest possible words without omitting necessary context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple create tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema. The description plus schema are adequate for basic usage, but it lacks behavioral context (e.g., duplicate handling, required authentication context). It is not comprehensive but acceptable for a straightforward creation operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond restating the purpose. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the details and the description does not contradict it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is specific: 'Add a new language to a Tolgee project' clearly identifies the verb (add), the resource (language), and the scope (Tolgee project). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_branch, create_keys, and create_project by naming the target entity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: one would use this when adding a language to a project. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, mention prerequisites (e.g., projectId for PAT), or note exclusions. Basic context is clear but no additional guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct entities and actions, but a few pairs like create_keys/set_translation and list_keys/search_keys have overlapping functionality. The descriptions clearly differentiate their use cases, so ambiguity is limited.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (create_, delete_, get_, list_, set_, etc.), making the API predictable. The only slight deviation is machine_translate, but it still reads as a single action verb.
With 22 tools, the server covers many aspects of translation management, but the count is slightly above the ideal range. Each tool has a clear purpose, though some could potentially be consolidated without loss of functionality.
The core key and translation lifecycle is well covered, but there are notable gaps: languages only support create and list (no update/delete), tags can be added but not removed, and projects lack get/update/delete operations. These omissions may require workarounds.
