Translation Services Mcp
Server Details
MCP server for Translation Services
- 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 3.2/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: single translation, batch translation, language listing, and health check. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case consistently (batch_translate, get_supported_languages, health_check, translate), even though 'translate' is a single word, it follows the pattern.
Four tools is well-scoped for a translation service: core translate and batch translate, supported languages discovery, and a health check. Each tool earns its place.
Covers the essential operations for translation: single and batch translation, language listing, and health status. A minor gap is the lack of automatic language detection, but source language is provided by the user.
Available Tools
4 toolsbatch_translateCInspect
Translate a list of strings into the target language. Returns {results: [{original, translated}]}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| texts | Yes | ||
| source | No | en | |
| target | No | en |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like language support, error handling, or default behaviors. It only mentions the return format, omitting important details such as whether source/target languages are validated or what happens on failure.
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 concise with two sentences covering purpose and return format. It is front-loaded but lacks necessary detail, which is a trade-off between conciseness and completeness.
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 no annotations, schema coverage 0%, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain parameter behaviors or constraints, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the 'texts' parameter ('list of strings') but does not explain 'source' or 'target' parameters, their defaults, or their roles in translation.
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 tool translates a list of strings into a target language and specifies the return format. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'translate' tool, leaving the agent to infer that this handles batches.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'translate' for single strings. There are no examples or context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_supported_languagesAInspect
List supported language codes and names. FREE discovery.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description is responsible for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'FREE discovery', hinting at no cost or authentication, but does not detail return format, rate limits, or side effects. For a simple read-only tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the action. Every word adds value, no redundancy.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough for a simple list tool. While it could mention if authentication is required, the 'FREE' hint mitigates this. Lacks output format details, but unlikely needed for such a tool.
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 0 parameters, so baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and properly indicates a no-argument call.
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 'List' and the resource 'supported language codes and names', making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'batch_translate' and 'translate', which perform translations.
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 implies usage for discovery purposes with 'FREE discovery', but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or provide exclusions. However, the context of sibling tools makes its typical use case clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
health_checkCInspect
Health check. FREE.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description only says 'Health check. FREE.' Does not disclose behavioral traits like what happens on success/failure, whether it makes side effects, or any rate limits. The 'FREE' note is ambiguous (free of cost?). Minimal behavioral info.
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?
Description is very short (three words), which is concise but sacrifices completeness. It is front-loaded but does not earn its place due to missing essential details. The word 'FREE' is potentially irrelevant.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining return values or behavior. It merely states 'Health check' with no details on output format, status codes, or error handling. Incomplete for a tool that likely returns a status.
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?
No parameters in input schema, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. Description adds no parameter info because none exist. Baseline for 0 params is 4; description does not detract but also does not add value beyond purpose.
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?
Description states 'Health check' indicating a general health check tool, but it lacks specifics on what exactly is checked (e.g., server status, API availability). The word 'FREE' adds cost info but not purpose clarity. Given siblings are translation tools, it's likely a simple status check, but not explicitly stated.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings. Siblings are translation-focused; health_check likely for system health, but no alternatives mentioned or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
translateBInspect
Translate text between 100+ languages (MyMemory). target/source: ISO codes (en, uk, de, ...). Returns {translated, source, target}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| source | No | en | |
| target | No | en |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description discloses use of MyMemory service and return format, but no annotations exist. Missing details on rate limits, character limits, authentication, or any side effects. Leaves significant behavioral unknowns.
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 concise sentences cover purpose, service, parameter format, and return shape. No wasted words, though structure could be improved with line breaks for readability.
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 simple tool with no output schema and no annotations, description covers basic purpose and parameter format, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, making it minimally viable but with clear gaps.
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 coverage is 0% but description compensates by explaining that source and target accept ISO language codes (en, uk, de, ...), adding meaning beyond the schema's type and defaults. The text parameter is self-explanatory.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'translate' and resource 'text', and mentions 100+ languages and service MyMemory. It implies single-text translation but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling batch_translate, which would make it clearer.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs batch_translate or get_supported_languages. Only hints at ISO code format for parameters, but no context on appropriate scenarios or prerequisites.
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!