Skip to main content
Glama
fruggr

Zendesk MCP Server by Fruggr

by fruggr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List Section Translations

list_section_translations
Read-onlyIdempotent

List all locale translations for a Help Center section to check if each is published or draft, and whether a description exists. Use when a section looks wrong in a specific locale.

Instructions

List the translations of a Help Center section: for each locale, the localized name, whether a description is set, and whether the translation is published or still a draft. Reach for this when a section looks wrong in a locale, because list_sections with that locale cannot settle it: a section with no translation is omitted from it, while a section whose translation is an unpublished draft may still be listed there under the draft name — so appearing in that listing does not mean published, and the draft flag here is what decides. Fix either case with set_section_translation; to sweep every category and section at once, use find_translation_gaps.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
section_idYesSection ID — the numeric id of the Help Center section. Obtain it from list_sections or the zendesk-hc://topology resource.

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. Addedv2.17.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantive behavioral context beyond them: untranslated sections are omitted from listings, and draft translations may appear under the draft name, so 'listed' does not imply 'published'. It also discloses the shape of the returned data without an output schema.

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-loaded with purpose and the returned fields, then the usage scenario and routing. The middle clause explaining the draft-listing nuance is dense but load-bearing rather than padding, so the length is justified even if the sentence is somewhat convoluted.

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 compensates by describing the returned fields, and it supplies the parameter's origin, the disambiguating rules, and both follow-up routes. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single section_id parameter is already documented in the schema, including its source (list_sections or the topology resource). The description adds no further syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List the translations of a Help Center section') and enumerates the returned fields (localized name, description set, published/draft). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_sections by naming the exact situation where the two differ.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when a section looks wrong in a locale'), explains why the obvious alternative (list_sections) cannot answer the question, and names both the remediation tool (set_section_translation) and the bulk alternative (find_translation_gaps). Nothing about when-to-use vs alternatives is left to inference.

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