Convert XMind title text to a chosen language and export a new XMind file. Set an optional output path, target language, and overwrite flag to replace an existing file.
翻译XMind标题并输出新文件。output_filepath 为可选绝对输出路径；target_lang 默认为 en，覆盖已有文件需 overwrite=True。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| overwrite | No | ||
| target_lang | No | en | |
| output_filepath | No | ||
| source_filepath | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the key mutation trait: overwriting an existing file requires overwrite=True, and the default behavior produces a new file. It omits other relevant behavior such as whether an external translation service is called, network/auth requirements, or failure handling.
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?
A single compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and then bundles the optional parameters efficiently. There is little waste, though the terse parameter clause reads more like an annotation than explanatory prose.
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?
The output schema means return values need not be explained, and the overwrite and default-lang semantics are covered. However, for a file-writing tool with no annotations the description should say more about source_filepath, overwrite risk, and translation behavior to be fully actionable.
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, and it does for three of four parameters: output_filepath is an optional absolute output path, target_lang defaults to en, and overwrite=True is required to overwrite. source_filepath (the required parameter) is left undocumented and target_lang values are not enumerated.
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?
States a specific verb+resource (translate XMind titles) and a concrete outcome (output a new file), which clearly separates it from siblings like read_xmind_file or list_xmind_files. It does not, however, explicitly name an alternative tool for comparison.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the five sibling tools, and no prerequisites are stated. Only an implied context (an existing XMind file whose titles need translating) is conveyed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.