doc_translate_cn文档翻译成中文,保留段落结构。逐段翻译并核对段落条数进出一致 —— 漏译最常见的形态就是整段消失,这里会当场发现。入参 url(文档链接)或 text,可选 target(默认 zh)。自证不通过不计费。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "doc_translate_cn"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| text | No | ||
| target | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavior. It mentions the self-verification of paragraph counts to catch omissions, and also states billing policy ('自证不通过不计费'), which adds transparency beyond an average description. However, it does not detail error scenarios or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by key details and billing logic. Each sentence adds value, with no redundancy. It's a single paragraph but well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main purpose, parameter semantics, validation behavior, and billing policy. It lacks details on output format limitations, supported document types, or error handling, but these may be inferred from the translation context. For a tool with no output schemaaine, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly defines each parameter: url as document link, text as presumably direct text, and target with default 'zh'. This fully compensates for missing schema descriptions, adding meaningful semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: '文档翻译成中文' (translate document to Chinese), with a specific resource and preserve paragraph structure. It distinguishes itself by mentioning the validation of paragraph counts, a unique feature not seen in sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the input options: '入参 url(文档链接)或 text,可选 target(默认 zh)', giving clear guidance on what to provide, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like translate_pdf. It provides context on when to use but lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.