Retrieve available languages for a specified order item kind—dubbing, subtitles, or transcription—so you can validate or select supported language options before placing a request.
Get Available Languages
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_item_kind | Yes | The kind of order item. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds nothing beyond that—no information about return format, pagination, or what 'available' means in this context (e.g., availability per order_item_kind). With annotations carrying the safety burden, the lack of any additional behavioral context is a gap for a tool in a rich ecosystem.
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—a single short phrase. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, but that conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification. For a tool with no other context, this level of brevity is efficient but not optimally informative.
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 that the tool has no output schema, the description should at least hint at what is returned (e.g., a list of language codes or names). It doesn't. Combined with vague purpose and no usage guidance, the description is incomplete for an agent trying to understand the tool's role in a complex API with many language-related siblings.
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 schema has 100% description coverage—the single parameter 'order_item_kind' is clearly documented with an enum and a description. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable when the schema fully documents the parameter. 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 is just the title restated: 'Get Available Languages' with no additional detail. It doesn't specify what kind of languages are returned (dubbing, subtitle, transcription), nor does it distinguish this tool from the vast array of language-related siblings like dubbing_language_list, get_voice_accents, or add_language.
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 usage guidelines are provided. It doesn't state when to use this tool versus alternatives like dubbing_language_list or how it relates to order items. The agent receives no context on the tool's intended scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.