GadgetHumans API Hub

translate

Translate text between any of 100+ languages, returning the translated string.

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>"
    },
    "name": "translate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	Target language code, e.g. fr, de, es, zh
`from`	No	Source language code (default en)
`text`	Yes	Text to translate (max 4000 characters)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 8, 2026
RemovedNov 6, 2026

Changed4 schema fields changedNov 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / from

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Source language code (default en)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / text

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Text to translate (max 4000 characters)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / to

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Target language code, e.g. fr, de, es, zh",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "text"
+]
```

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return value ("the translated string"), which is the only output documentation since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about failure behavior for unsupported language codes, rate limits, or whether source language is auto-detected when omitted.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately short for a simple three-parameter tool, though a brief clause on the omitted-source case would have been cheap to add.

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?

For a low-complexity, flat-schema tool with full parameter coverage, the definition plus schema gives an agent nearly everything needed to call it. The main gap is the absence of any guidance on language code sourcing and on what happens when "from" is omitted.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents "text", "to", and "from" including the 4000-character limit and the default of en. The description adds only the notion that 100+ language codes are supported, without format or error semantics beyond what the schema states.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Translate text") plus scale ("100+ languages"), so an agent knows immediately what the tool produces. It does not name sibling tools such as detect_language or language_list, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 implied by the verb and the mention of a source/target language pair, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no note on when to omit "from" versus calling detect_language first, and no mention of language_list for discovering codes.

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

All GadgetHumans API Hub 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.