SimpleLocalize MCP Server

Official

by simplelocalize

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resources (keys, translations, languages, customers, environments, glossary, jobs, activity), but there is notable overlap among key retrieval tools (get_translations, get_all_translation_keys, get_translation_keys, get_all_translation_keys_v2, get_translation_key_details) and screenshot upload variants, which could cause misselection without careful reading.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_, create_, update_, delete_, import_, export_, publish_, etc.) with clear resource nouns. Minor deviations include versioned tool names like get_all_translation_keys_v2 and the slight ambiguity between singular/plural job tools, but overall the pattern is predictable.
Tool Count2/5
47 tools is excessive for most MCP servers, even for a comprehensive translation management platform. While each tool addresses a specific operation, the sheer number overwhelms agents and suggests possible consolidation (e.g., merging single/bulk variants or combining related getters). The count is well above the typical 3-15 range.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface is quite complete, covering CRUD for translation keys, translations, languages, tags, customers, glossary entries, environments, and auto-translation jobs, plus import/export and activity tracking. Minor gaps include missing update/delete for environments and no dedicated single-translation getter, but these are workable limitations.
Average 4/5 across 47 of 47 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 26, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotation Contradiction: the description states 'Replaces the existing screenshot if one exists,' which is an overwrite/destructive operation, yet destructiveHint is false. Per MCP conventions destructiveHint covers overwrite, so an agent trusting the annotation may wrongly assume the prior screenshot is preserved. The description is otherwise honest about replacement and the missing-key error, but the contradiction forces a low score.
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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the two-bullet layout efficiently covers requirements, constraints, and side effects. There is minor redundancy with the schema (file format/size repeated), but every element earns its place and the overall size is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers preconditions, file constraints, replacement side effect, and the error case, which is solid for a 3-parameter mutation tool. However, with no output schema it omits what the caller gets back on success, and it never addresses the sibling alternatives, which is a meaningful gap given upload_translation_key_screenshot and upload_translation_key_screenshots_bulk exist.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 description essentially restates what the schema already documents (key required, filePath required with absolute path and PNG/JPG/JPEG max 4MB, namespace optional) without adding meaning beyond it. No harm, but no added value over the structured fields.
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 states a specific verb+resource+source: 'upload a screenshot for a translation key from a local file.' This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools upload_translation_key_screenshot and upload_translation_key_screenshots_bulk, whose names alone suggest a non-file upload and a bulk operation respectively. An agent can confidently select this tool without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear invocation prerequisites (key and filePath required, namespace optional, absolute path with format/size constraints) and one error condition. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over its near-identical siblings upload_translation_key_screenshot and upload_translation_key_screenshots_bulk; differentiation is left to inference from the tool name rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the mutation safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., reversibility, cascading effects, or error behavior). Since the annotation provides the key disclosure, the description adds limited value but does not contradict.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with zero redundancy. The purpose is stated clearly, and the required parameter is called out. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter destructive action, the description covers the core purpose and required input. However, it lacks usage guidelines and any note on what happens if the tag does not exist or has dependencies. Given the low complexity, it is minimally adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%: the parameter tagName already has a description ('Tag name to delete.'). The description repeats this and notes it is required, but adds no additional semantics such as constraints or examples. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('a tag from your SimpleLocalize project'). The purpose is clear and unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like update_tag or create_tag, but the action is distinct enough that an agent can infer when to use it.
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. It does not mention when to prefer delete_tag over create_tag or update_tag, nor when not to use it. The only context is the purpose statement, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says it replaces an existing screenshot, yet annotations declare destructiveHint: false, which is an annotation contradiction. Because of that contradiction, this dimension must be scored 1 despite the useful error-condition disclosure.
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, front-loaded with the core action, and uses bullets for parameter requirements and behaviors. It earns its place, though the replacement behavior is mentioned twice (description and base64 schema description), a minor redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
It covers required parameters, image format and size limit, replacement semantics, and failure when the key doesn't exist, which is enough for an agent to invoke the tool safely. With no output schema, it doesn't describe return values, but that's a minor gap for an upload operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%; both key and base64 have descriptions in the schema, and namespace is also documented. The tool description repeats these constraints (required, max 2MB, PNG/JPG/JPEG) rather than adding meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific action: upload a single base64-encoded screenshot for a translation key. It names the key resource and differentiates via 'base64-encoded' and singular 'a screenshot' from sibling file/bulk variants.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It conveys when to use this tool (single base64 upload/replace) and its prerequisites, but it never explicitly contrasts it with upload_translation_key_screenshot_file or upload_translation_key_screenshots_bulk. The usage is implied rather than stated as when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds operational behavior beyond annotations: it lists filtering dimensions, pagination, sorting, and the text search minimum length, all consistent with a read-only listing operation.
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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a scannable bullet list for capabilities. Every sentence adds functional information; there is no filler or repetition. A minor gap is the vague 'and more' in the filter list, but overall it is well structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main operational facets: listing, filtering, pagination, sorting, and the text search constraint. However, there is no output schema and the description does not disclose what the response contains or its structure, which matters for a tool with 12 optional parameters. It is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description summarizes filter categories and the text minimum length, but does not add substantive meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('list') and resource ('translations in your SimpleLocalize project'), and the bullet list clarifies what the tool does. However, it does not name or differentiate explicitly from sibling tools like get_translation_keys or get_all_translation_keys, so the distinction is left to inference.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage-related note, the minimum character length for 'text', applies to a parameter rather than tool selection. There are no exclusion criteria or explicit comparisons to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the customer must already exist and that 'key' and 'description' are optional updates, but it does not explain side effects, failure behavior, or whether omitted fields are preserved. No contradiction with annotations.
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-loaded with the main action, followed by a clear bullet summarizing how to call the tool. It has no unnecessary fillers, though 'This tool will' could be tightened.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 3-parameter update with full schema coverage and annotations, the core calling details are present. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention what the tool returns or what happens when the customer key does not exist, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds minor context by calling customerKey 'existing' and labeling key/description as optional, but this mostly repeats what the schema states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly names the operation ('update') and resource ('a customer in your SimpleLocalize project'). It is specific enough to distinguish from create_customer, get_customer, and delete_customer in the sibling list, though it does not explicitly call out any sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a prerequisite: provide the existing 'customerKey' to identify the customer. It also notes which fields can be updated optionally. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_customer or delete_customer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context—project scope and optional status filtering—but does not mention pagination, output shape, or any status value constraints. No contradiction exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, and the optional filter is stated compactly. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter, the description is mostly adequate, especially given the annotations. However, it lacks valid status values or any reference to alternative filtering tools, and with no output schema it does not hint at the response shape or potential pagination.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the status parameter as an optional filter. The description repeats this without adding valid values, formats, or examples, so it does not elevate meaning beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('auto-translation jobs'), and the plural 'jobs' distinguishes it from the singular sibling get_auto_translation_job. It also scopes the tool to a SimpleLocalize project, making its purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description only notes that status filtering is optional. It provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_auto_translation_job or create_auto_translation_jobs, and no exclusions or conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond those annotations, including pagination limits (page, size), the maximum page size of 50, and the cap of 500 latest entries.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the tool's purpose, and the second provides the only additional operational detail needed for pagination. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool with two optional, fully documented parameters, the description is nearly complete. Minor gaps remain, such as the exact ordering of results and what 'recent' means, but an agent can invoke this tool correctly with the given information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description reinforces the defaults and maximums but doesn't add substantial new meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline expectation for fully covered parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the operation ('list recent activity') and the resource (SimpleLocalize project), and gives concrete examples of activity types. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_activity_changes, which could overlap with the 'changes' category.
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?
The description says what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it over alternatives. The sibling tool get_activity_changes suggests a possible different purpose, but the description doesn't clarify whether to use get_activity or get_activity_changes for a specific need.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds that it returns all content changes and requires an activityId, but does not disclose pagination, limits, return structure, or any other behavioral nuances beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the parameter guidance is concise and actionable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple one-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations. The description tells the agent what the tool does and how to obtain the required ID. It does not describe the return format, but this is a minor gap given the simplicity and the explicit 'list all content changes' outcome.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents activityId well. The description reinforces that it is required and suggests sourcing it from get_activity, but this adds only marginal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all content changes for a specific activity entry, using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like get_activity by focusing on changes, but does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives a clear prerequisite ('activityId' from get_activity), which helps the agent understand where the ID comes from. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful context by specifying partial-update semantics (only provided optional fields are updated) and which fields can be changed. Still, it does not clarify behavior on missing keys, reversibility, or lock/deprecation effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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 compact, uses bullets for readability, and leads with the core action. It is not tautological or padded. Minor redundancy exists between the opening scope statement and the closing use-case list, but overall it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the full parameter schema and annotations, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly: target identification, updatable fields, and intended use cases. There is no output schema, but this is acceptable for an update tool whose response shape is likely peripheral to the call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes all 10 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to compensate. It adds some value by separating identification fields (key/namespace) from update fields (newKey, newNamespace, etc.), but this is largely a re-grouping of schema information rather than new semantic depth.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: updating a translation key's metadata and/or key/namespace. It also names concrete use cases (rename keys, move keys between namespaces, update metadata). It does not explicitly call out the sibling update_translation_key_by_id, but the emphasis on identifying the key by 'key' and 'namespace' implies the distinction from an ID-based update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear when-to-use guidance: rename keys, move keys between namespaces, or update key metadata. It does not mention exclusions or explicitly route to alternatives such as bulk updates or update by ID, so it falls just short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds project scope and the single-customer guarantee, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as error behavior, not-found handling, or response shape.
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 gets the core purpose across immediately. The bullet restating 'customerKey (required)' is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it is minimal and does not hurt clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it. There is no output schema, but the phrase 'return details' is acceptable for this simple resource lookup.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the description merely restates that customerKey is required. It adds no extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the input schema already provides.
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 the action ('return details') and the resource ('a single customer'), and the singular phrasing distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_customers' without requiring schema inspection. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for when you need details for one customer and already have the customerKey, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over get_customers or when not to use it. No alternative tools are named, so usage guidance is left mostly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, and the description does not contradict that. It adds limited behavioral context through the importOptions examples like PUBLISH_AFTER_IMPORT and REPLACE_TRANSLATION_IF_FOUND, but it does not explain default behavior, side effects, or what happens to existing translations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence and required/optional parameters clearly grouped. Every sentence contributes useful information without filler or redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 7-parameter import operation with no output schema, the description adequately covers the input contract and names optional parameters. However, it does not describe the return shape, default publishing/replacement behavior, or other operational outcomes, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether the call succeeded.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats required/optional groupings and adds format examples, which is helpful but does not meaningfully go beyond what the schema provides.
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 opening sentence names the action ('import'), the object ('translations'), and the target ('SimpleLocalize project'), making the purpose explicit. It also clarifies the input is a local file, which differentiates it from export, manual updates, and other translation-related siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly states that filePath and uploadFormat are required and lists the optional parameters, so an agent knows the minimal call shape. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives like export_translations or update_translations_bulk, nor provide when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the single-language scope and does not disclose response format, error behavior, or any operational constraints beyond that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core operation is stated first. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could briefly say what 'details' are returned or handle the missing languageKey case, but nothing essential to invoking the tool is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers the only parameter with a description and example, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little beyond restating languageKey as required and repeating the same example, providing no extra semantic nuance.
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?
Description uses a specific verb, 'return details,' and a resource, 'a single language in your SimpleLocalize project.' The singular phrasing ('single') disambiguates from the sibling get_languages, so an agent can distinguish the tools without opening schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clearly implies a use case — fetching one language's details — but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_languages or other related tools, and provides no exclusion or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds that the tool attaches screenshots to keys, which is the core behavioral effect, but it does not disclose what happens on partial failures, duplicate keys, or whether existing attachments are replaced. It provides some value beyond the annotations but not rich behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and well-structured: one sentence explains the overall purpose, and one bullet-style sentence lists the parameters and constraints. Every part earns its place with no filler or redundant explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the schema covers all parameters and the operation is straightforward, the description is mostly complete. It could mention failure behavior or whether the attachment overwrites existing screenshots, but the core calling contract is sufficiently clear for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description repeats the required fields and limits but does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond what is already present in the input schema.
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 states a specific action: upload a screenshot and attach it to multiple translation keys at once. This clearly identifies the resource and the bulk nature of the operation, which distinguishes it from the sibling singular upload tools without requiring the agent to inspect them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for attaching one screenshot to multiple keys, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over the sibling tools like upload_translation_key_screenshot or upload_translation_key_screenshot_file. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or explicit alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses async behavior, that results are saved directly to the project, and that the configuration is fixed from a prior Web App job. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc.) without contradicting them. It also tells the agent how to monitor progress.
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 concise, with a clear main statement followed by three bullet points that add necessary details. It front-loads the purpose and avoids redundant phrasing. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an asynchronous job tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what starts, how to influence it, what limitations exist, and how to track results. It is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly, though it could mention potential side effects like cost or rate limits.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters already described in the schema. The description adds only minor clarification (e.g., the languageKeys fallback) but does not significantly extend beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('start asynchronous auto-translation jobs'), the resource (project languages), and that results are saved directly. It is specific enough to be understood, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool auto_translate_text (which likely handles synchronous single-text translation), so it misses some differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear usage context: mentions optional languageKeys with fallback behavior, and notes that the provider/configuration comes from the last Web App job and cannot be customized. It also directs to related get_* tools for progress tracking. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over auto_translate_text or other translation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey that the operation is mutating and non-idempotent (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds a useful constraint that 'key' must be valid, but it does not disclose duplicate-key behavior or failure modes. This is adequate but not rich.
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 compact: one front-loaded sentence followed by two clear bullets. It wastes little space, though the phrase 'This tool will' could be trimmed without losing meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter create operation, the description covers the resource, project context, required key format, and optional display name. It omits return-value details and duplicate-key behavior, but the low complexity and existing annotations make this a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers both parameters with 100% coverage, including examples and optional status. The description restates the required/optional nature and adds 'must be a valid language key', but this is mostly emphasis rather than new semantic information. Baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific action ('create a new language') and resource ('language in your SimpleLocalize project'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_language, update_language, and delete_language.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when this tool is used — when creating a new language — and emphasizes the required key and optional name. It does not explicitly contrast with update_language or get_languages, but the creation intent is clear enough for an agent to choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable context: the scope is fixed to the project associated with the current Project API Key. It also discloses the kinds of data returned and contains no contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the invocation detail is isolated in the second, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, no-parameter read-only metadata call, the description provides enough context: authentication scope via the API key and the broad categories of returned data. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by the listed fields, though a bit more specificity about the response shape could strengthen it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and the description explicitly says 'No parameters required,' matching the empty schema. This is the appropriate baseline for a parameterless tool and leaves no ambiguity about invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'return full details' for the current project. It also enumerates the data categories (languages, customers, namespaces, environments, translation progress), which helps distinguish it from specialized sibling getters like get_languages and get_customers, though it does not name them explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clearly states when to use it—for project-level details—and notes that no parameters are required. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent to prefer this tool over the more specific sibling getters when only a single category is needed, leaving alternatives implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation is expected. The description adds that the operation is a bulk update with a 100-item constraint, but this is also present in the schema. It does not disclose edge behaviors like whether missing keys are created or how partial failures are handled.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief, front-loaded with the core action, and organized into four scannable bullets. Each sentence adds functional information, with no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description plus schema provides enough to invoke the tool for straightforward bulk updates. However, with no output schema, it does not clarify return format, error behavior, or whether this updates only existing keys versus upserts, which would be valuable for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents the 'translations' array and every field. The description adds a convenient summary of required vs. optional fields but no deeper meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'update multiple translations in bulk in your SimpleLocalize project.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like update_translation (singular) and create_translation_key_bulk (creation) by emphasizing bulk updates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The last bullet, 'Use this for efficient mass updates,' provides a clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description confirms this is a creating/mutating operation. However, it does not disclose behavior such as what happens if a duplicate key is provided or whether the created customer is immediately visible in list calls.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded: it states the action in the first sentence and then lists parameter guidance in a clear bullet point. Every sentence contributes useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter creation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the essential invocation details. It lacks explicit mention of return values or duplicate-key behavior, but these are minor gaps for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description largely restates the schema information: 'key' is required and unique, 'description' is optional. It adds little beyond the schema's own 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 the action: 'create a new customer in your SimpleLocalize project.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_customer, get_customer, and delete_customer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context—this tool is for creating customers—and gives practical instruction on what to provide: a required unique 'key' and optional 'description'. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate that this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the reserved-key constraint and the downstream publish-tool relationship, but most other behavioral context merely restates schema constraints. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded, with the main action stated first followed by necessary constraints and a practical next-step note. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 3-parameter create tool, the description plus schema covers what is needed to invoke it correctly. It lacks explicit mention of the return value or error behavior, but the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation make this a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 description helpfully summarizes key/name/color constraints, but the schema already documents patterns, lengths, and the reserved '_latest'/'_production' restriction. The description adds little beyond a human-readable restatement.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'create a new Translation Hosting environment in your SimpleLocalize project.' It clearly distinguishes itself from other create_* sibling tools by naming the exact resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is clear: use this tool when creating an environment, and the description adds the useful downstream note that the environment can then be used with the publish tool. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or name alternative tools, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-destructive operation with open-world semantics. The description adds the requirement for a unique name and hex color, but largely restates the schema and does not disclose duplicate-handling behavior, persistence, or side effects beyond creation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief, front-loaded with the core action, and uses bullet-style guidance with no filler. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter create operation with complete schema coverage and informative annotations, the description covers the essential details. It does not explain error responses or duplicate-name behavior, but these are not critical for an agent to invoke the tool successfully with the required inputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters with meaningful descriptions. The description echoes the uniqueness and hex-format requirements but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'create a new tag in your SimpleLocalize project.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_tags, update_tag, and delete_tag, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the primary use case clear: creating a new tag and providing a unique name and color. It does not explicitly contrast with update_tag/delete_tag or state when not to use the tool, but the context is unambiguous and no exclusions are needed for this simple CRUD operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds specific behavioral context: the entry is removed along with all its translations. This goes beyond the annotation and informs the agent of the full blast radius. It could also mention non-idempotency, but that is already captured by idempotentHint=false. It adds meaningful value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences front-load the core action, with the requirement placed in a bullet. No wasteful words; every sentence earns its place. The structure is efficient and easily parsed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the essential effect (deletes translations) and the required input. It does not mention return values or error handling, but that is common for tools with no output schema and is not a critical gap given the simplicity. Annotations cover the safety profile, so the description is sufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description for sourceText is 100% covered ('Source term of the glossary entry to delete'). The tool description reiterates the requirement but adds no new parameter semantics, such as format, constraints, or examples. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 the action ('delete') and the resource ('glossary entry'), and adds the critical effect that all translations are removed. The scope is unambiguous and distinguishes it from other delete tools (e.g., delete_tag, delete_language) by naming the specific resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage ('provide sourceText') but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. For a destructive operation, it could caution about irreversibility, but that's covered by the destructiveHint annotation. It is minimally functional but lacks proactive routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral nuance by stating that it returns a list of downloadable file URLs and does not download file content itself, which is beyond what annotations convey. It does not contradict any annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the list of optional parameters and return behavior are stated efficiently. Every sentence adds value; it is concise without being under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context: it states the return type (list of URLs) and that it does not download content. However, it does not clarify expected response structure beyond 'list of URLs' (e.g., expiration, format of URL objects) or any prerequisites like project ID context. For an export tool, this is a minor gap but not a blocker.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description lists parameters and gives examples of downloadFormat values, but this largely repeats the enum values already present. No additional meaning or usage nuance is added beyond the schema.
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 a specific action (export translations), the resource (from your SimpleLocalize project), and the outcome (to downloadable file(s)). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on export vs. import/get operations, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains that it returns URLs rather than content, and lists optional parameters, giving context on what to expect. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_translations or import_translations, nor does it provide any 'when-not-to-use' guidance. Usage context is implied but not specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes 'details and progress', which is useful, but it does not disclose error behavior, status values, or pagination. This is adequate for a simple getter but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and the required parameter called out in a bullet. There is no filler or redundancy beyond a mild restatement of requiredness, which is harmless for an agent-facing description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter read-only getter, the description covers purpose, what is returned, and the required argument. There is no output schema, so more detail about the exact response fields would be beneficial, but the high-level 'details and progress' combined with annotations is enough for correct selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%; the jobId parameter is already documented as 'The auto-translation job ID' with minLength and required. The description merely restates 'Provide jobId (required)', adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific operation ('return details and progress') and a specific resource ('a single auto-translation job'). The word 'single' clearly differentiates it from the plural sibling get_auto_translation_jobs, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for a single auto-translation job' gives clear context that this is the one-job retrieval tool, as opposed to listing or creating auto-translation jobs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns hosting status/details and can be used for availability verification, but it does not describe response shape or edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the bullet adds the required parameter and intended use without filler. Every sentence contributes useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter, read-only tool, the description plus schema and annotations provide enough to select and invoke it correctly. It could be slightly more complete by naming get_environments as the tool for listing all environments, but that is not essential for this tool's own invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter environmentKey already has a thorough description including examples and the _latest default. The tool description mostly repeats the requirement rather than adding new semantic information.
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 uses a specific verb ('retrieve') and names the exact resource: hosting status/details for a specific environment in a SimpleLocalize project. It also scopes itself to a single environment, distinguishing it from the plural sibling get_environments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides a clear use case: verify whether an environment is available and check its hosting status. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to get_environments as the alternative for listing all environments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the returned metadata fields but does not describe deeper behavior such as error cases, authorization needs, or response shape. It is consistent with the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by two short bullets covering parameters and return fields. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundant filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the required key, optional namespace, and the metadata fields returned. Since there is no output schema, listing example return fields helps the agent, though it could also note missing-key behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains 'key' and 'namespace'. The description only restates which parameter is required and which is optional, adding no deeper meaning beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'return details for a specific translation key.' It clearly distinguishes this singular detail-lookup tool from plural listing siblings like get_translation_keys and get_all_translation_keys.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly signals when to use it: when you need details for a specific translation key, with 'key' required and 'namespace' optional. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the singular-specific framing provides clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds that the existing languageKey is used to identify the target, and that only key/name can be optionally updated. It does not disclose deeper effects such as whether changing a language key cascades to translations, but for a simple update tool this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with a bullet-style list. The action and required identifier are front-loaded, and every sentence contributes useful guidance without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple update operation with three well-documented parameters, the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It covers required and optional inputs but does not mention return values or conflict behavior; the lack of an output schema makes this a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds a little context by clarifying languageKey is the identifier and key/name are optional updates, but the schema already carries the main semantic load.
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?
Description clearly states a specific action ('update') on a specific resource ('a language in your SimpleLocalize project'), and the mention of 'existing languageKey' distinguishes it from creating or deleting a language. It is unambiguous and differentiates from sibling tools like create_language or delete_language.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the core usage pattern: provide the existing languageKey and optionally update key/name. It implies this tool is for modifying an existing language rather than creating one, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already show this is a mutating (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description aligns with that. It adds that fields are optional and updateable, but doesn't disclose whether omitted fields are preserved, validation behavior, or what the response contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences with a bulleted usage rule; purpose is front-loaded and no word is wasted. The example source of the ID is helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 9-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the action, all updatable fields, and when to call it. It lacks an explicit statement about the return value (there is no output schema) and doesn't name the alternative tool, but the core selection/call information is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and every parameter already has an explanatory description. The tool description merely repeats the parameter names as a list without adding semantics such as interactions or constraints, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific action ('update'), a precise resource ('translation key ... by its ID'), and the scope ('metadata and/or key/namespace'). It differentiates from the sibling update_translation_key by specifying the ID-based addressing and pointing to get_all_translation_keys_v2 as the ID source.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives a clear trigger condition: use when you already know the translation key's ID. It does not explicitly name the alternative for when you don't have an ID (e.g., update_translation_key), so it falls short of fully explicit when-not/alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it doesn't throw an error when a translation key already exists and instead returns a list of failures. This supplements the readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false annotations with useful real-world behavior.
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 concise, with the primary purpose in the first sentence and bullets for constraints. It is front-loaded and easy to scan, though it slightly duplicates schema information such as the max-100 limit and optional fields.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a single required parameter with a fully described schema, the description covers the essential usage constraints and duplicate-key behavior. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the note that failures are returned, but the exact response structure is still unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description largely restates what the schema already provides: each object must include 'key' and may include optional fields. It adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score applies.
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 states a specific action, resource, and scope: 'create multiple translation keys in your SimpleLocalize project in bulk.' The word 'bulk' clearly distinguishes this from the sibling create_translation_key, and the array-based input reinforces the plural nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the intended usage clear by emphasizing bulk creation and capping the request at 100 objects. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative for single-key creation or state when this tool would be inappropriate, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds important behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explicitly warning that all translations for that language are also removed. This gives the agent a clearer understanding of the blast radius before invoking the tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, focused, and front-loaded with the core action, followed by the required parameter and the critical side-effect warning. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers what is deleted, how to specify the language, and the major side effect. No output schema exists, but nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents languageKey with 100% coverage, including an example. The description mostly restates the same information, adding little semantic value beyond what the schema provides.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: deletes a language from a SimpleLocalize project. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like delete_translation_key (which deletes a translation key) and delete_customer/delete_tag.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied: use this when you want to delete a language. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives such as delete_translation_key for removing only individual translations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the scope of listing supported formats for import and export, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return structure or potential variability. This is acceptable for a simple zero-parameter read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the explicit note about parameters adds a small but relevant operational detail without wasting space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent list tool, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. No output schema is present, but the phrase 'list all file formats' sufficiently communicates the expected result type. Sibling tool context does not reveal any missing prerequisites or caveats.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the schema already fully defines the input contract. The description reinforces this with 'No parameters required', which is helpful for an agent deciding whether any setup is needed. With no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('list') and a clear resource ('file formats supported for import and export in SimpleLocalize'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle translations, projects, or tags, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when an agent needs to know which file formats are supported for import/export, especially before using import_translations or export_translations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusion guidance, leaving usage context implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal destructiveness and non-idempotency, so the description's burden is lower. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the default 'environmentKey' behavior, the label restriction to _latest only, and the guaranteed publishing order. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses three scannable bullets for the key behavior. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no fluff or redundant filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter tool with destructive annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important user-facing behaviors: default environment, optional label constraint, and publishing order. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly without needing additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description essentially restates the default for environmentKey and the label constraint, adding little semantic value beyond what the structured schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb ('publish'), a specific resource ('translations'), and the target scope ('specified environment in your SimpleLocalize project'). This clearly distinguishes the operation from sibling import/export/update tools, and the name does not need to be inferred.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: publish translations when an environment target is known, and it gives a concrete rule for when no environment is specified (use _latest). However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over import_translations or other translation-mutation siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a valuable behavioral detail beyond the destructiveHint annotation: deletion also removes all customer-specific translation overrides and includes a cautionary note. This surfaces a non-obvious side effect.
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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a required parameter note and a cautionary side effect. Minor wording like 'This tool will' could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter destructive tool with annotations already covering safety and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the required input and the key side effect, leaving no critical gap for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'customerKey' as required and as 'The customer key to delete.' The description restates this requirement without adding new parameter semantics, warranting the baseline score.
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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'delete a customer from your SimpleLocalize project.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_customer, get_customer, and update_customer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on what the tool does and requires 'customerKey' as input. It does not explicitly list exclusions or directly reference alternatives, but the intended use is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry the destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the risky nature of the operation is covered. The description adds the scope ('single translation key') but does not mention consequences like cascade deletion or irreversibility. This is acceptable but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the main action is in the first sentence, followed by direct parameter guidance and an alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple deletion tool, the description, schema, and annotations together cover the essential invocation details: parameters, required fields, destructiveness, and the bulk alternative. A mention of what happens after deletion or return value would be nice, but it is not necessary for correct tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both 'key' and 'namespace' are already documented. The description only restates that 'key' is required and 'namespace' is optional, which adds no new semantic depth beyond the schema.
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 the specific verb ('delete') and resource ('a single translation key') and ties it to the SimpleLocalize project. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from delete_translation_keys_bulk by framing the bulk tool as the alternative for multiple keys.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance: it explains the required 'key' and optional 'namespace', and clearly states when to use the sibling bulk tool instead. This gives an agent a direct routing rule for single vs. multiple deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: missing keys do not cause an error, and the tool returns a failures list when applicable. This meaningfully sets expectations for a destructive bulk operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the action and resource. The three bullet points each earn their place: input shape, error behavior, and recommended use case. There is almost no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers what to pass, the size limits, behavior for nonexistent keys, the failure-list response signal, and when to use the tool. It leaves the failure-list structure unspecified, but that is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents the translationKeys array, min/max items, and the key/namespace properties. The description essentially restates these facts without adding extra semantics or edge-case guidance. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states the specific verb 'delete', the resource 'translation keys', and the scope 'in bulk in your SimpleLocalize project'. The word 'bulk' distinguishes this tool from the singular sibling delete_translation_key without needing to open the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives a clear usage context: 'Use this to clean up unused keys efficiently.' This tells an agent when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavior: it returns all keys at once without pagination and specifies the exact fields included (id, key, namespace only, no metadata). This goes beyond what annotations state and helps the agent understand the response shape and scope.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured. It leads with the primary purpose, then lists key properties (no pagination, optional filter, use case) in a bulleted format. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: it names the exact return fields, notes that all keys are returned, and suggests a specific use case. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but these are not critical for a read-only list tool and are partly implied by the annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema as 'Filter by translation key ID (optional).' Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond repeating that the filter is optional. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and there is no additional enrichment.
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 the tool returns all translation keys with a specific set of fields (id, key, namespace) and explicitly excludes metadata. It uses a clear verb and resource, and the optional filter is mentioned. This distinguishes it from other tools in the sibling list, such as get_translation_key_details which likely returns more detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a specific use case: 'Use this when you need translation key IDs (e.g., to use with update_translation_key_by_id).' It also notes that no pagination is needed and that filtering by id is optional. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions to avoid using this tool, so it is not quite a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar for behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations by stating that built-in environments like _latest and _production are included when available, along with custom environments. This gives the agent meaningful expectations about the result set.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, followed by two terse bullet points for invocation and return scope. Every line earns its place with no filler or redundant restatement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only list tool, this description is largely complete: it states the project scope, what is returned, and examples of included environments. It falls just short of full completeness because there is no output schema and the per-environment fields or response shape are not described, though the built-in examples give useful context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents everything about parameters. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate, and the description reinforces it by explicitly stating 'No parameters required.'
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'list all Translation Hosting environments' in the current SimpleLocalize project. The plural 'all' and the mention of built-in plus custom environments clearly differentiate it from the singular get_environment_details sibling. Scope is explicit and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: call this when you need to enumerate environments. It also explicitly notes that no parameters are required. However, it never contrasts this with get_environment_details or states when to prefer the singular details tool, leaving the choice partly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds project-scope context ('configured in your SimpleLocalize project') but does not disclose return format or pagination; this is acceptable given the simple list nature and annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact: two sentences plus a bullet point, with the core function front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place by stating what the tool does and why to use it, with no redundant fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource, scope, and use case. It could theoretically mention the shape of the returned language list, but 'list all languages' sufficiently implies the outcome for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The explicit statement 'No parameters required' reinforces the schema and is useful for an agent; baseline 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.
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 the tool 'will list all languages configured in your SimpleLocalize project', identifying a specific action and resource. The use case 'to see available languages for translations' further clarifies its role and distinguishes it from singular operations like get_language.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: to see available languages for translations. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but for a parameterless list operation the usage guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the project scope and confirms no parameters are required, but it does not disclose response format or pagination behavior. No contradiction exists.
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-loaded with the main purpose. It is slightly redundant by repeating 'No parameters required' when the schema is already empty, but it remains compact and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only, non-destructive list operation, the description is complete. The agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly without needing additional explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is little to document. The explicit 'No parameters required' line usefully reinforces the empty input schema.
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 the tool 'will list all tags in your SimpleLocalize project', using a specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguishable from sibling mutation tools like create_tag, update_tag, and delete_tag because 'list' is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: 'Use this to see available tags for categorizing translation keys.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but for a simple listing tool no exclusion is really needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds modest context (project-scoped, white-labeling purpose) but does not disclose things like pagination or response shape. With strong annotations, this is acceptable but not exceptional.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states purpose, the second removes any ambiguity about parameters, and the third adds useful domain context. No filler or redundant wording is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless read-only list tool with robust annotations, this description is complete. It identifies the resource, scope, usage context, and parameter expectations. No additional information is needed for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter meaning left to explain. The description reinforces this by stating 'No parameters required,' which is sufficient given the empty schema.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'list all customers configured in your SimpleLocalize project.' It clearly distinguishes this bulk-listing operation from the singular get_customer and from create/update/delete_customer siblings. It also adds domain context by explaining customers are used for white-labeling overrides.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the tool's use case clear: retrieve all customers when you need the full set, and it explicitly notes that no parameters are required. It does not name alternatives like get_customer, but the resource name and plural form make the intended usage obvious enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that it throws an error on duplicate keys, which is critical for anticipating failure. It doesn't contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: first sentence states the action; second sentence lists parameters; third sentence covers error behavior and the alternative tool. Every sentence carries distinct, useful information with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational detail: required params, optional params, and the duplicate-key failure mode. It doesn't explain the success return value, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical. Overall the agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage and describes all parameters thoroughly, so the baseline is 3. The description merely lists the optional parameters without adding new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. It does reinforce that 'key' is required, but that is present in the schema.
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 begins with a specific active verb ('create') and identifies both the object ('translation key') and the scope ('single ... in your SimpleLocalize project'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the bulk sibling by saying 'single,' so an agent can immediately tell this tool apart from create_translation_key_bulk.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives direct routing guidance: use this tool when creating a single key, and explicitly names create_translation_key_bulk as the alternative for creating multiple keys or ignoring existing ones. It also communicates a key condition (throws error if key exists) that helps the agent decide when this tool is inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish mutability (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations, including the error condition for a missing tag, the optional nature of the updates, and the hex format requirement for color with no leading '#'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by two bullet-style lines covering invocation and error behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple update tool with clear schema annotations and no output schema, the description provides the essential invocation details: required identifier, optional fields, and failure behavior. It does not describe the return value, but that is not critical for correct selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by clarifying that 'tagName' identifies the existing tag and that 'name'/'color' are optional updates, plus the specific hex format nuance of no leading '#'.
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 uses a specific verb ('update') with a clear resource ('a tag in your SimpleLocalize project'). It also implies the existing tag must be identified by 'tagName', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_tag, delete_tag, and get_tags.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear usage context: provide the existing 'tagName' and optionally update 'name' and/or 'color'. It also notes that an error is thrown if the tag does not exist, effectively communicating that this is for existing tags only. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the intended use is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by clarifying the exact return content ('key and namespace only'), which is not obvious from the tool name alone. It does not discuss pagination or limits, but for a no-parameter read-only tool the provided context is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence states the core function, one confirms no parameters, and one states the intended use case. Every sentence earns its place and is front-loaded with the most important detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, no-parameter, read-only list tool, the description is complete. It tells the agent what will be returned, what is excluded, and when to use it. No output schema exists, but the return content is described well enough for correct invocation and expectation-setting.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description's statement 'No parameters required' adds minimal information beyond the empty input schema. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is adequate and no further parameter detail is needed.
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 states a specific verb ('return'), the resource ('all translation keys'), and the exact scope ('key and namespace only') in your SimpleLocalize project. This makes it clear what the tool does and distinguishes it from translation detail or mutation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear use case: 'Use this to quickly fetch all keys for reference or validation.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the usage context is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context that each entry includes the source term, source language, and translations for all target languages, plus it confirms no parameters are required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds scope, entry content, or usage guidance. There is no filler or repetition beyond a useful confirmation of zero parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description provides everything needed to invoke it and interpret results: it lists all glossary entries, describes what each entry contains, and states when to use it. No output schema exists, but the return semantics are sufficiently covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters and the schema already marks this clearly. The description reinforces 'No parameters required,' so there is no need for it to compensate for undocumented parameters.
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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('all glossary entries') scoped to the user's SimpleLocalize project. It clearly identifies what the tool does and naturally distinguishes it from the create/delete glossary entry siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives a concrete usage context: use it to check project-specific terminology before translating or reviewing texts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the operation is synchronous, does not persist to the project, and is intended for ad-hoc/preview use. It doesn't mention costs, rate limits, or external side effects, but annotations already signal open-world behavior and non-destructiveness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured and front-loaded: the core behavior is stated first, followed by required parameters, optional parameters, and usage guidance. Bullets make scanning easy, and every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is needed to invoke it correctly: required inputs, optional inputs, and the sibling tool for the saving variant. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating the return format, which is largely implied by 'translate'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds modest value by grouping required vs optional parameters, enumerating provider options, and giving a concrete example for targetLanguage. It doesn't deeply explain every parameter, but the schema already covers that.
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?
States the exact operation with a specific verb and resource: auto-translate a single piece of text synchronously without saving it. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling create_auto_translation_jobs by noting the 'no save' behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this to preview a translation or translate ad-hoc text.' It also names the alternative tool to use when saving is needed: create_auto_translation_jobs. This is direct, actionable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description adds important behavioral detail: the upsert behavior for existing sourceText, non-empty target requirements, max-length constraints, existing-language-key validation, and plan availability. This makes the tool's side effects and preconditions transparent without contradicting the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence followed by four focused, actionable bullets. Every line adds information, and the main purpose is front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the schema and annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly: required fields, parameter constraints, language-key prerequisites, plan limitation, and update semantics. No output schema is present, but the description is still sufficient for correct use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value by explaining that sourceText has a max length of 128, targets must be non-empty, and all language keys must exist in the project. The upsert rule also adds important semantic meaning to sourceText beyond the schema.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'will create a glossary entry in your SimpleLocalize project.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_glossary_entries and delete_glossary_entry by naming the glossary-entry object and creation action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear practical context: language keys must already exist, get_languages is recommended if unsure, and the Community plan restriction is a real usage constraint. It also explains that an existing sourceText triggers an update rather than a duplicate. It does not explicitly contrast this with alternative translation-creation tools, but the usage context is otherwise clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: exact-match case-sensitive filtering, supported sort fields, and pagination defaults/caps. This is more than minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: main purpose first, then options and routing guidance in clean bullets. Every sentence adds value without redundant restatement of the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-required-parameter read operation, the description covers filters, sorting, pagination defaults, maximums, and the key sibling alternative. Without an output schema, it still provides enough context for correct invocation and selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that key and namespace filters are exact match and case sensitive, which is not present in the schema. Other parameter details mostly restate schema but with useful invocation context.
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 states a specific verb and resource: return translation keys with full metadata for a SimpleLocalize project. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_all_translation_keys by naming metadata and pagination as its differentiators.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Final bullet gives direct routing guidance: use this instead of get_all_translation_keys when metadata or pagination is needed. It also lists optional filters and sort options, so an agent can decide when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal a non-read-only mutating operation, so the description's job is lighter. It adds concrete failure behavior: it throws if the translation key, language key, or customerId does not exist, which clarifies that this tool does not auto-create missing entities. This is useful context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured: operation first, then required/optional parameters, then failure behavior, then the alternative for bulk updates. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, which inputs are required, the error conditions to expect, and when to use a sibling tool instead. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping required and optional parameters in one place and by noting that namespace participates in translation-key identity, which is not explicitly stated in the schema. It also connects customerId to the existence-check behavior.
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 states a specific verb+resource pair: 'update a single translation in your SimpleLocalize project.' It explicitly contrasts with update_translations_bulk by emphasizing 'single,' making the tool's scope and differentiation from siblings clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explains when to use this tool by naming the alternative for mass updates: 'Use update_translations_bulk for efficient mass updates instead.' It also lists required vs optional inputs and tells the agent what errors occur if referenced keys, languages, or customer IDs do not exist, which is actionable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![simplelocalize-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/simplelocalize/simplelocalize-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/simplelocalize/simplelocalize-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![simplelocalize-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/simplelocalize/simplelocalize-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/simplelocalize/simplelocalize-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/simplelocalize/simplelocalize-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server