Add tags to translation keys. Creates tags if they don't exist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | Yes | Names of the tags to add | |
| branch | No | Optional: branch name | |
| keyNames | Yes | Names of the keys to tag | |
| 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, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses a non-obvious behavior: tags are created if they don't exist. However, it does not mention idempotency, effects on existing tag assignments, or error behavior, leaving notable gaps.
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 exactly two sentences, front-loading the primary action and adding one valuable behavioral note. There is no filler or redundancy—every word contributes.
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?
The description covers the core action and key behavior, and the schema provides detailed parameter definitions. However, with no output schema, return values are not described, and the tool's relationship to namespaces/branches is only implied. It is adequate but has clear gaps for a mutation tool.
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 already defines each parameter's meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what is in the schema; the auto-create behavior is tool-level, not parameter-level. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the action ('Add') and the resource ('tags to translation keys'), making its purpose unmistakable. The additional clause about creating missing tags adds a useful distinction, confirming it handles both tagging and tag creation.
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 by naming the operation, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like create_keys or list_tags. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether keys must already exist or when not to use it.
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.
