Get a translation for a specific locale (e.g. "en_US", "fr_FR").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | No | Translation domain (only "default" is supported currently) | default |
| locale | Yes | Locale code (e.g. en_US, fr_FR) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description matches the readOnlyHint annotation by using 'Get', so there is no contradiction. However, it adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotation: it does not describe return shape, error behavior, or whether multiple translations exist per locale. The annotation lowers the burden, but the description still offers minimal extra transparency.
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?
One concise sentence with no filler. The action, target, and parameter example are all front-loaded and immediately understandable. Nothing extraneous is included.
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 two-parameter read-only tool with a fully documented schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The only minor gap is that it does not explain what a 'translation' is in this context or what the caller should expect in the response, but the operation is simple enough that this is not a major deficiency.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the locale format from the schema but does not add additional meaning about the domain parameter or the relationship between domain and locale beyond what the schema already documents.
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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('translation'), and the qualifying parameter ('locale') with concrete examples. It is unambiguous enough to identify this as a read operation for a translation, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like update_translation or put_notification_locale.
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 alternatives. It does not mention that update_translation exists for modifying translations, nor does it clarify when get_translation is the appropriate choice among the many get_/list_ sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly organized as distinct resource/action pairs, but several clusters are easy to confuse: list subscription tools (add_subscribers_to_list vs bulk_subscribe_to_list vs subscribe_user_to_list), message vs message-content vs message-history retrieval, and the many journey/journey-template list/get tools. Detailed descriptions rescue most selections, but the sheer number of near-identical verb/resource names creates real misselection risk.
Almost all tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, list_, replace_, send_, publish_, archive_). Minor deviations keep it from a perfect score: courier_installation_guide is noun-first, and add_bulk_users sits awkwardly next to the bulk_add_* family, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.
144 tools is an extreme working-set size for an agent to hold and choose from, far beyond the reasonable 3–15 range. Even for a broad platform like Courier, this should be split into focused sub-servers (templates, journeys, users, lists, preferences, etc.) to remain usable.
The surface is remarkably comprehensive, covering sending, templates, journeys, automations, users, tenants, lists, preferences, providers, routing, brands, audiences, translations, digests, bulk jobs, and audit events. Notable gaps exist—automation template CRUD and digest schedule management are missing—but most workflows can still be completed with workarounds.
