xliff-mcp-server

Provides an MCP server (Python) exposing tools to parse, validate, extract, and manipulate XLIFF and TMX localization files, including tag-preserving processing, replacement of XLIFF targets from translated content, and CSV/JSON exports. Also ships a skills/catalog workflow layer intended for agent-guided localization tasks.

Evaluated Apr 04, 2026 (17d ago)
Homepage ↗ Repo ↗ Infrastructure mcp xliff tmx localization translation-workflow agent-tools python
⚙ Agent Friendliness
58
/ 100
Can an agent use this?
🔒 Security
25
/ 100
Is it safe for agents?
⚡ Reliability
21
/ 100
Does it work consistently?

Score Breakdown

⚙ Agent Friendliness

MCP Quality
68
Documentation
72
Error Messages
0
Auth Simplicity
90
Rate Limits
5

🔒 Security

TLS Enforcement
20
Auth Strength
10
Scope Granularity
0
Dep. Hygiene
55
Secret Handling
50

Security characteristics are largely unknown from the provided content. TLS/auth are not discussed; if deployed remotely, transport security and access control must be handled by the host/container/network. The package is MIT-licensed and uses common Python libraries; specific dependency vulnerabilities/CVE posture is not provided. Since MCP runs as a local process (per README), secrets are likely not required, but input data handling and logging behavior are not documented.

⚡ Reliability

Uptime/SLA
0
Version Stability
35
Breaking Changes
20
Error Recovery
30
AF Security Reliability

Best When

You have local XLIFF/TMX content and want an agent-accessible, tool-based workflow to parse/validate/transform it (including tag-safe workflows).

Avoid When

You need strong API-level security controls (auth, scopes, rate limiting) provided out of the box, or you require a hosted endpoint with documented SLAs.

Use Cases

  • Extract translation units from XLIFF files for review or machine translation
  • Extract translation units from TMX translation memory files
  • Validate XLIFF/TMX inputs before processing
  • Preserve inline formatting/tags in XLIFF while preparing content for AI translation
  • Replace XLIFF target segments using structured translation results (segNumber/unitId mapping)
  • Export XLIFF/TMX to CSV or JSON for downstream tooling

Not For

  • Running as a secure hosted SaaS without additional deployment hardening (auth/rate limiting not described)
  • Handling extremely large files without confirmed streaming/memory safeguards (not documented)
  • Using as a general translation service (it processes files; translation generation is out of scope)

Interface

REST API
No
GraphQL
No
gRPC
No
MCP Server
Yes
SDK
No
Webhooks
No

Authentication

OAuth: No Scopes: No

No authentication mechanism is described for the MCP server. The README shows local process invocation (e.g., Claude Desktop command/args), implying access is controlled externally by your environment rather than via server auth.

Pricing

Free tier: No
Requires CC: No

No pricing information is provided (likely open-source with self-hosted/local execution).

Agent Metadata

Pagination
none
Idempotent
False
Retry Guidance
Not documented

Known Gotchas

  • Replacement-style tools likely require correct segNumber/unitId alignment; mismatches may lead to partial or incorrect updates.
  • Tag-preserving workflows require that inline tags are handled exactly as expected by the XLIFF structure; malformed inputs can break processing.
  • No rate-limit or concurrency guidance is documented for MCP tool calls.

Alternatives

Full Evaluation Report

Comprehensive deep-dive: security analysis, reliability audit, agent experience review, cost modeling, competitive positioning, and improvement roadmap for xliff-mcp-server.

AI-powered analysis · PDF + markdown · Delivered within 30 minutes

$99

Package Brief

Quick verdict, integration guide, cost projections, gotchas with workarounds, and alternatives comparison.

Delivered within 10 minutes

$3

Score Monitoring

Get alerted when this package's AF, security, or reliability scores change significantly. Stay ahead of regressions.

Continuous monitoring

$3/mo

Scores are editorial opinions as of 2026-04-04.

8642
Packages Evaluated
17761
Need Evaluation
586
Need Re-evaluation
Community Powered