Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
boltwork-mcp

boltwork-mcp

by Squidboy30
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

translate

Translate text or document URLs into 24 languages. Automatically detects source language and costs 150 sats via Lightning.

Instructions

Translate text or a document URL to any of 24 supported languages. Detects source language automatically. Costs 150 sats via Lightning. Supported languages: Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Dutch, Russian, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Arabic, Hindi, Turkish, Polish, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Finnish, Czech, Romanian, Hungarian, Greek, Hebrew, Thai.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "target_language": "<target_language>"
    },
    "name": "translate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textNoText to translate (provide either text or url)
urlNoURL of document to translate (provide either text or url)
target_languageYesTarget language (e.g. 'spanish', 'french', 'japanese')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.22

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses cost and automatic language detection, which are key behavioral traits. Lacks error conditions or side effects, but sufficient for this tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with action, no redundant words. Every sentence adds essential information: purpose, cost, languages.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, description covers purpose, cost, languages, and parameter mutuality. Could mention return format or precedence if both text and url given, but overall adequate.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by clarifying that text or url should be mutually exclusive ('provide either') and listing supported languages, which aids parameter choice.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states it translates text or document URLs to 24 supported languages. Verb+resource+scope is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like analyse_contract or summarise_pdf.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Mentions cost (150 sats) and lists supported languages, providing clear context. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, though no sibling translation tools exist.

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