Give your AI agent access to 150+ translators covering fictional languages, pop culture dialects, historical languages, technical encodings, and internet slang.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one discovers available translators, the other performs translation. There is no realistic way for an agent to confuse listing with translating.
Both names use kebab-case with a consistent '-tool' suffix and clear verb-led phrasing (list-all-translations, translate). The suffix is a minor stylistic quirk but conventions are consistent across the set.
Only two tools exist, which is thin even for a simple translation service. A get-translator-details or language-pair lookup tool could reasonably earn a place, making the surface feel borderline minimal.
The core workflow is covered: discover translators and translate text. Minor gaps exist, such as fetching details or supported languages for a specific translator, but agents can work around them via the list tool.
List all the translators available in the system. Result is a paged structured response.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds behavioral context by stating the result is 'a paged structured response,' which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradictions, but it does not explain pagination mechanics like page size or cursor handling.
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 concise sentence that immediately states the action and result format, with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently conveys the key information.
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?
For a simple list tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the core purpose and mentions paging. It does not specify ordering or filtering, but these are likely handled by the output schema. The only notable gap is the title/description mismatch, but the tool is otherwise adequately described.
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?
There are no parameters in the input schema, so schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description appropriately does not add parameter-specific details because none exist.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource ('translators available in the system'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'translate-tool' by focusing on enumeration rather than translation. The title says 'translations' but the description says 'translators', which is a minor inconsistency, but the intended purpose is unambiguous.
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 over alternatives. There is no mention of the sibling 'translate-tool' or any conditions or exclusions for use. The usage is implied at best, but no explicit context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. | |
| options | No | Optional translator-specific settings, such as {"style": "superscript"} for small-text. Unknown keys and invalid values are ignored and fall back to the defaults. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Input Text |
| translated | Yes | Translated Text |
| translator | Yes | Translator used |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens on an unknown slug, whether failures are raised or silent, or anything about latency or size limits.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing guidance noted elsewhere.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the nested options semantics live in the schema. What is missing is the operational link to list-all-translations-tool for obtaining a valid slug, which is the main thing an agent would need before calling.
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 100%, so all three parameters, including the nested options object with its fallback behavior, are already documented in the schema. The description only gestures at slug and text and never mentions options, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 names a specific verb and resource ("Translate the given text") and states that a translator is selected by the caller, so the tool's function is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from list-all-translations-tool or note that this is where a listed translator slug is consumed.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to the sibling tool for discovering valid translator slugs. The agent is left to infer that 'the translator specified' must come from list-all-translations-tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
translate-tool1 field changedInput schema / properties / optionsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional translator-specific settings, such as {\"style\": \"superscript\"} for small-text. Unknown keys and invalid values are ignored and fall back to the defaults.",
+ "type": "object"
+}list-all-translations-tooltranslate-tool
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.