Retrieve all supported languages in your Lara Translate account to confirm which language pairs you can translate between.
Lists all supported languages in your Lara Translate account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | Supported language codes (e.g., 'en-US', 'it-IT') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "items": {
+ "description": "Supported language codes (e.g., 'en-US', 'it-IT')",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "items"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the account-scoping detail and nothing about result size or ordering; for a parameterless read this is adequate but not enriching.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The verb and scope lead, and no filler or redundant restatement of the title is present.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and there are no parameters or complex behaviors to document. The description is sufficient for this simple enumeration tool, though it omits whether the list is paginated or sorted.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies since no parameter semantics are required.
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?
States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (all supported languages), plus the scoping context 'in your Lara Translate account'. It is clear enough on its own, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby detect_language or translate siblings.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no conditions or prerequisites stated. An agent must infer that this is a lookup helper to call before translate or detect_language.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.