Translate SRT caption files between languages, starting with English to Spanish, and report language coverage honestly so you know what was translated.
Translate SRT captions with honest language-coverage reporting (EN→ES first).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input_path | Yes | ||
| output_path | No | ||
| source_lang | No | en | |
| target_lang | No | es |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'honest language-coverage reporting', which is a behavioral trait, but it does not disclose file overwrite behavior, output format, required credentials, or what happens if output_path is omitted. The description leaves most behavioral context unstated.
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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the action first and adds a qualifier. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity contributes to the missing guidance rather than being a model of well-structured 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?
With four parameters at 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It states the purpose but omits parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral details that an agent would need to call the tool correctly.
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 for four undocumented parameters. It only implies language direction via 'EN→ES first', which loosely maps to source_lang and target_lang defaults, but says nothing about input_path, output_path, or their formats and roles.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Translate SRT captions', and adds a scope qualifier 'with honest language-coverage reporting (EN→ES first)'. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like video_ai_transcribe, video_dub_plan, or video_generate_subtitles, so it falls short of a 5.
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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not name any alternative tool. 'EN→ES first' hints at an initial language pair but does not explain when this tool should be chosen over other translation or subtitle-generation siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.