Mymemory

Mymemory Translate

mymemory_translate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Translate text from one language to another with no API key required. Source defaults to automatic language detection when omitted. Returns the translated text, the detected source language (when auto-detected), and a match-quality score (1.0 = exact translation-memory match, lower = machine-translated). Language codes are ISO 639-1 (e.g. "en", "de", "ja", "zh-CN").

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "text": "The meeting has been postponed until next week",
      "target": "de"
    },
    "name": "mymemory_translate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes	The text to translate.
`source`	No	Source language code, e.g. "en". Omit to auto-detect.
`target`	Yes	Target language code, e.g. "de".

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`source`	Yes	Source language code, or null when auto-detected
`target`	Yes	Target language code
`match_quality`	Yes	Translation-memory match score from 0 to 1; 1.0 is an exact match, lower is machine-translated
`original_text`	Yes	The original text that was translated
`translated_text`	Yes	The translated text
`alternate_matches`	Yes	Up to 3 other candidate translations from the translation memory
`detected_source_language`	Yes	Auto-detected source language code, present only when source was omitted

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: no API key needed (auth surface), and the meaning of the returned match-quality score (1.0 = exact translation-memory hit vs. lower = machine-translated), which materially affects how an agent should trust the output. It omits any mention of rate limits or per-request text size caps, which are real constraints for this service.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the source-default behavior, then return semantics and code format. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is padded.

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 present and full annotation coverage, the description covers the remaining agent-facing questions (auth, detection behavior, code format, score interpretation). The one gap is the absence of any note about input size limits or rate limiting, which would matter for a translation endpoint.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond it: it specifies the exact code format (ISO 639-1) with region-qualified examples like 'zh-CN', and clarifies that omitting source triggers auto-detection. This is slightly richer than the schema's bare 'e.g. "en"'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Translate text from one language to another') and adds a distinguishing operational fact ('no API key required'). No sibling tool in the list offers translation, so an agent can route here unambiguously.

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 purpose — there are no alternatives to weigh and no exclusions to state, which is acceptable for a singular capability. However, it gives no guidance on input constraints (e.g. length limits) or when translation is the wrong approach, so guidance is only implicit.

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

All Mymemory 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.