Tutorial AI

Translate project

translate_project

Destructive

Translate a project into one or more target languages in its current workspace. A new language creates a sibling project; a language already present in the translation group retranslates and replaces that sibling's editable translated content while preserving its uid. Translation uses the workspace's one-click translation entitlement and may incur AI usage. Confirm the exact target languages with the user before calling this tool.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectUid`	Yes
`targetLanguages`	Yes	Languages to create or retranslate. Duplicate values are ignored case-insensitively.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projects`	Yes
`translatedCount`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 30, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / projects / items / properties / language / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / projects / items / properties / language / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
First observedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: a new language creates a sibling project, an existing language retranslates and replaces that sibling's editable translated content while preserving its uid, and the call uses the workspace's one-click translation entitlement and may incur AI usage. This is strong transparency for a destructive operation and is consistent with destructiveHint=true.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by behavioral consequences and the confirmation requirement. Every sentence carries actionable meaning with 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Given the destructive annotation, two required parameters, and the create/retranslate distinction, the description provides the behavioral context an agent needs to call the tool safely and 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 50%, with targetLanguages documented in the schema and projectUid undocumented. The description adds useful semantics for targetLanguages by explaining create-vs-retranslate behavior, but it does not add meaning for projectUid beyond the obvious name. This is reasonable but not fully compensating for the coverage gap.

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 precise verb and resource: translating a project into one or more target languages in its current workspace. It also distinguishes two distinct outcomes, creating a sibling project versus retranslating an existing one, which lets an agent understand the operation 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly explains the two usage scenarios (new language creates a sibling; existing language retranslates and replaces content) and instructs the agent to confirm target languages with the user before calling. It does not name or compare against sibling tools such as generate_project or duplicate_project, so it stops short of explicit alternative routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Tutorial AI tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?