Get a translation key's metadata (name, namespace, description) by its name. To get the key's translations, use get_translations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| branch | No | Optional: branch name | |
| keyName | Yes | The translation key name | |
| namespace | No | Optional: namespace of the key | |
| 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, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that the tool returns metadata only (not translations), which is useful, but it does not mention error behavior, permissions, or side effects. For a simple read operation this is acceptable, but gaps remain.
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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose and return fields, the second gives a pointer to an alternative. Every word contributes, 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 simple get tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (metadata fields) and directs users to get_translations for translations. It could mention optionality of branch/projectId, but the schema covers those details, so the description is sufficiently complete.
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 descriptions cover all four parameters (100% coverage), and the description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It reinforces keyName as the lookup key but adds no new meaning.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('translation key's metadata'), and explicitly lists the metadata fields (name, namespace, description). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool get_translations by noting the difference, which clarifies its unique purpose.
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 an explicit alternative ('To get the key's translations, use get_translations'), giving clear guidance for a common alternative use case. However, it does not contrast with other siblings like list_keys or search_keys, so it is not fully comprehensive.
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.
