Skip to main content
Glama
fruggr

Zendesk MCP Server by Fruggr

Find Help Center Translation Gaps

find_translation_gaps
Read-onlyIdempotent

Audit the Help Center tree for a target locale. It reports every category and section with no translation or an unpublished draft.

Instructions

Audit the Help Center tree for a target locale and report every category and section that has no translation, or one that is still an unpublished draft. Use it before or after translating articles: an article published in a second locale is unreachable while its parent section only exists in the source locale. Listing sections in that locale cannot answer this — a node with no translation is simply absent, without saying why, and a node whose translation is an unpublished draft may still be listed under its draft name — so this audit reads the draft flag on each node instead of trusting that listing. Costs two listings and covers up to 100 categories and 100 sections; past that only the first page of each level is audited, and the report says so — pass category_id to narrow it. Fix what it reports with set_section_translation / set_category_translation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
localeYesLocale to audit, e.g. "fr" or "de" — usually a non-default active locale of the Help Center (zendesk-hc://topology lists them). A locale that is not active is reported as a warning, since every node would then look untranslated.
category_idNoRestrict the audit to this category and the sections it contains (id from list_categories). Omit to sweep the whole tree, which costs two listings and covers up to 100 categories and 100 sections.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.24.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.17.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / category_id / description
      Previous value: -"Restrict the audit to this category and the sections it contains (id from list_categories). Omit to sweep the whole tree, which costs one request per category and per section."New value: +"Restrict the audit to this category and the sections it contains (id from list_categories). Omit to sweep the whole tree, which costs two listings and covers up to 100 categories and 100 sections."
  3. Addedv2.17.1

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the cost (two listings), the coverage cap (100 categories and 100 sections, only first page past that, with a self-reporting caveat), the inactive-locale warning, and crucially that it reads the draft flag rather than trusting the listing. This is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence and keeps every clause information-bearing. The second sentence is a dense run-on with multiple em-dash clauses, which slightly hurts scannability, but no content is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what the report contains (gaps plus the reason: missing vs unpublished draft) and its limits. Combined with the routing to fix tools, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the tradeoff of omitting category_id (full sweep costs two listings, capped at 100/100) versus passing it to narrow the audit, and notes the inactive-locale warning behavior for locale.

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?

States a specific verb (audit), resource (Help Center tree for a target locale), and precisely what it reports: categories/sections with no translation or only an unpublished draft. It is unambiguously distinguishable from the listing siblings like list_sections/list_articles.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says when to use it (before/after translating articles) with the concrete motivating scenario of an article being unreachable while its parent section only exists in the source locale. It names the alternative (listing sections in that locale) and explains why it fails, and routes fixes to set_section_translation / set_category_translation.

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