Delete translation keys from a Tolgee project. IMPORTANT: This is a destructive operation. The AI assistant should always confirm with the user before calling this tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| branch | No | Optional: branch name | |
| keyNames | Yes | Names of the keys to delete | |
| namespace | No | Optional: namespace of the keys | |
| projectId | No | ID of the project (required for PAT, auto-resolved for PAK) |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly warns that the operation is destructive and requires user confirmation, which is crucial behavioral context. It doesn't detail irreversibility or authorization, but the destructive flag is meaningful.
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?
Two concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second adds a critical safety warning. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.
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?
For a destructive tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does and the safety precaution. It doesn't explain return values or side effects, but those are less critical given the explicit destructive warning and complete parameter schema.
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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's clarity.
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 clearly states the tool deletes translation keys from a Tolgee project, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like delete_branch based on the resource type, though it doesn't explicitly call out alternatives.
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 provides clear context: it is a destructive operation and the AI must confirm with the user before calling. It doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the confirmation requirement is a strong usage guideline.
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.
