Fun Translations
Server Details
Give your AI agent access to 150+ translators covering fictional languages, pop culture dialects, historical languages, technical encodings, and internet slang.
- Status
- Unhealthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one lists available translators, and the other performs translations. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool based on the task.
Both tools follow a similar naming pattern with hyphen-separated words and descriptive names (list-all-translations-tool, translate-tool). However, the first tool includes 'tool' in its name while the second does not, which is a minor inconsistency that slightly affects uniformity.
With only two tools, the server feels thin for a translation service. While it covers basic listing and translation, it lacks operations like managing translators, handling errors, or supporting batch translations, which are common in such domains. The count is too low for a comprehensive translation interface.
The tool set is severely incomplete for a translation server. It only provides listing and translation, missing essential operations such as adding or removing translators, updating translation settings, or handling language detection. This will likely cause agent failures when more complex workflows are needed.
Available Tools
2 toolslist-all-translations-toolList All Translations ToolARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List all the translators available in the system. Result is a paged structured response.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| perPage | Yes | Number of translators returned in this paged response |
| totalCount | Yes | Total Translators available |
| currentPage | Yes | Current page number of this paged response |
| translators | Yes | Translators List |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by noting the response is 'paged' and 'structured', alerting the agent to expect pagination handling and a complex return object.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste: first defines purpose, second describes response characteristics. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (per context signals) and is a simple read-only operation with no parameters, the description is sufficiently complete. It appropriately omits detailed return value explanations since the output schema exists.
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?
Input schema has zero parameters. Per evaluation rules, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (translators), distinguishing from the sibling 'translate-tool' which performs translation rather than listing available services. Minor ambiguity between 'translations' in the name and 'translators' in the description prevents a 5.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the 'translate-tool' sibling, or when listing translators is preferable to performing a translation. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
translate-toolTranslate ToolBRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Translate the given text using the translator specified and return the result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The translator to use. Supply the translator slug. | |
| text | No | The text to translate. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Input Text |
| translated | Yes | Translated Text |
| translator | Yes | Translator used |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, establishing safety and consistency. The description adds minimal behavioral context ('return the result'), confirming it is a query operation without side effects, but omits details about error handling, rate limits, or invalid slug behavior.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. While appropriately brief, it is overly terse and misses opportunities to add value regarding sibling relationships or parameter dependencies.
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?
Given the simple 2-parameter structure, complete schema coverage, existing annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the basics. However, it lacks critical contextual links to the sibling tool needed for the required 'slug' parameter, leaving a functional gap.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents both 'slug' and 'text' parameters. The description references 'translator specified' and 'given text' but does not add semantic meaning, examples, or format constraints beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.
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 core action (translate) and resource (text) with a specific verb. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this execution tool from its sibling 'list-all-translations-tool', which could lead to confusion about whether this lists available translators or performs translation.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing to obtain a valid 'slug' from 'list-all-translations-tool' first. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!