Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@kieksme/listmonk-mcp

@kieksme/listmonk-mcp

by kieksme
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Get I18n Language Pack

listmonk_get_i18n_lang
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve UI translation strings for a specified language code to localize or inspect Listmonk interface text. Supports Markdown or JSON output.

Instructions

Returns the UI translation strings for a given language code.

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": {
      "lang": "<lang>"
    },
    "name": "listmonk_get_i18n_lang"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langYesLanguage code, e.g. 'en' or 'de'.
response_formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' for human-readable text (default) or 'json' for machine-readable data.markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully carried by structured data. The description adds no behavioural context beyond that, such as what happens when the language code is unknown (error vs. fallback to English) or how large the returned string set is. With annotations covering the bar, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter read, though it stops short of using its one sentence to carry any additional detail.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple read tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations and no output schema, the definition is technically sufficient to invoke it. The notable gap is failure behaviour for an unsupported or malformed language code, which matters because 'lang' is a free-form string with only a minLength constraint and an agent has no way to predict the outcome.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters carry inline documentation, including an example format for 'lang' and the enum semantics for 'response_format', so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'for a given language code' only restates the lang parameter and adds nothing about whether two-letter codes are mandatory, whether regional variants work, or how response_format affects the payload.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description pairs a specific verb ('Returns') with a specific resource ('UI translation strings') and scopes it to 'a given language code', so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. No sibling tool in the list covers i18n, so there is nothing to disambiguate against, but the definition is not quite a 5 because it never states what kind of artifact (a JSON key/value bundle of UI labels) comes back.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description is a bare statement of function with no when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of any alternative tool. Usage is only inferable because the tool's purpose is self-evident; the definition contributes no routing guidance of its own.

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