Skip to main content
Glama
Tapra MCP server
by tapra-ai

Translate

translate

Converts text between Tunisian Derja and English, French, or Modern Standard Arabic in both directions, with optional cost limits.

Instructions

Translate between Tunisian Derja and English, French, or Modern Standard Arabic (in both directions). Call list_translation_languages for the exact target names. Costs money per character.

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": {
      "text": "<text>",
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "translate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes
sourceNoSource language. Usually auto-detected.
targetYesTarget language, e.g. "Derja", "French", "English", "MSA".
max_cost_tndNoRefuse to run if the estimated cost is above this many TND. Defaults to TAPRA_MAX_COST_TND when set.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds crucial behavioral context: 'Costs money per character,' which is not in the annotations. However, it doesn't detail rate limits, auth needs, or output format.

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 purpose, then guidance and cost. No wasted words; every element serves a distinct purpose.

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?

For a translation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, languages, cost, and target-name resolution. It omits minor details like output format or formatting preservation, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity and annotations.

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 75%, with descriptions for source, target, and max_cost_tnd; text has no description but constraints. The description adds value by naming the specific languages and directing to list_translation_languages for exact target names, which is not in the schema.

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?

States a clear verb 'Translate' and resource (text between specific languages), with scope 'in both directions'. It differentiates from generic translation by naming the supported languages, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool translate_subtitles.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Provides a clear prerequisite for target names ('Call list_translation_languages for the exact target names') but offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like translate_subtitles or when not to use it.

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