rd_translateTurns rough or non-English prompts into clear, model-friendly English text for pixel-art generation. Enhances prompt clarity to improve output quality.
Translate/enhance prompts into model-friendly English prompt text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seed | No | ||
| prompt | Yes | ||
| negative | No | ||
| generations | No |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool transforms text, but does not disclose whether it calls an external model, requires a running backend, is deterministic, or has side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the core action and output, making it easy to scan.
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 tool has four parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, yet the description only covers the general purpose. Key details about parameter roles, expected behavior, and prerequisites are missing, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.
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 by explaining parameters. It does not mention prompt, negative, seed, or generations at all, leaving their semantics entirely to the schema property names and defaults.
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 states a specific action (translate/enhance) on a specific resource (prompts) with a clear output (model-friendly English prompt text). It is distinguishable from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from rd_prompt_extract or explain what 'enhance' adds beyond translation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rd_generate or rd_prompt_extract. The description implies it should be used to improve prompts before generation, but that context is not stated explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.