APIVerve

Translator

Translator

Read-only

Translator: Translator is a language translation API that translates plain text or HTML into target languages using standard language codes. Submit any string with a target language code to receive the translated text, both language names, and the confirmed or auto-detected source language. (Cost: 40 credits)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "text": "<text>",
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "Translator"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	The text to translate
`format`	No	text (default) or html. With html, markup and entities are kept and only the text between tags is translated	text
`source`	No	The language code of the text to translate (e.g., en). If left blank, language will be auto-detected
`target`	Yes	The language code to translate the text to (e.g., fr, es, de)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No
`error`	No	Error message, null on success
`status`	No	"ok" on success

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the response contains the translated text plus both language names and the confirmed or auto-detected source, and it discloses a 40-credit cost, which is not in any structured field.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and ending with the credit cost. Minor waste in the 'Translator: Translator is...' repetition of the tool name, but otherwise tight.

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?

With an output schema, full annotation coverage and 100% parameter documentation, the description only needs to add the non-structured bits, and it does so via the cost and the auto-detect confirmation behavior. An agent has enough to call 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains text, format, source (auto-detect if blank) and target. The description only restates 'standard language codes' and the auto-detection behavior, adding little beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('translates plain text or HTML into target languages'), which clearly separates it from detection-adjacent siblings like LanguageDetector or TextLanguage. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Submit any string with a target language code'. Nothing says when to prefer this over GrammarCheck, Dictionary, or LanguageDetector, nor any exclusions or limits on input.

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

All APIVerve 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.