list_languagesCheck which languages can be transcribed and which support translation before requesting a translation. Free.
Every language that can be transcribed, and which of them can be translated into. Free. Check a target here before asking for a translation: more languages can be transcribed than translated into.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds information annotations cannot convey: the call is 'Free' and the returned set distinguishes transcribable from translatable languages, which is behavioral context an agent needs before calling a translation tool.
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 tight sentences with no waste; the resource definition leads and the actionable 'check before translating' guidance follows.
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, the description usefully characterizes what is returned (the language set and translation coverage), which is exactly what an agent needs from a zero-parameter reference 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 tool takes no parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs.
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 precisely defines the resource: every transcribable language plus which of them accept translation. It goes beyond the name/title by exposing the transcribe-vs-translate distinction, though it never states a verb ('returns...') or explicitly contrasts with sibling tools.
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?
It gives a concrete trigger: 'Check a target here before asking for a translation,' which tells the agent exactly when to consult this tool. No explicit when-not condition is given, but no genuine alternative exists among the transcription siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.