Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AceDataCloud

SerpMCP

by AceDataCloud
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

List search language codes

serp_list_languages
Read-onlyIdempotent

List commonly used language codes for Google search to enable localized results. Returns a table of codes and their languages.

Instructions

List commonly used language codes for Google search.

Shows common language codes that can be used to get results in specific languages.

Returns:
    Table of language codes and their languages.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.46
  2. Removedv0.1.45
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered. The description adds the useful qualifier 'commonly used' (implying a non-exhaustive subset) but otherwise repeats the return content that the output schema already carries.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Front-loaded and short, but the second sentence ('Shows common language codes that can be used to get results in specific languages') largely restates the first, so a third of the text earns nothing. The Returns block duplicates the output schema on top of that.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a trivial zero-parameter lookup with full annotations and an output schema, nothing an agent needs is missing; the description states scope and result shape, and the structured fields cover the rest.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema description coverage is 100% and the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — listing language codes for Google search — so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It doesn't differentiate itself from the closely named siblings (serp_list_countries, serp_list_search_types, serp_list_time_ranges), but the name plus description together are unambiguous.

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: consult this when a search needs a language parameter. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer a sibling list tool, and no note that the codes feed other tools' parameters.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools