Skip to main content
Glama

translate

by io.github.pipeworx-io

List Languages

list_languages
Read-onlyIdempotent

List all languages supported by the translation API. Returns language codes and names.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
totalYesTotal number of supported languages
languagesYesList of supported languages

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {}
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "languages": {
+      "description": "List of supported languages",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "code": {
+            "description": "Language code",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "description": "Language name",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "code",
+          "name"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "total": {
+      "description": "Total number of supported languages",
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "total",
+    "languages"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / examples
      Removed value: -[
-  {}
-]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "languages": {
-      "description": "List of supported languages",
-      "items": {
-        "properties": {
-          "code": {
-            "description": "Language code",
-            "type": "string"
-          },
-          "name": {
-            "description": "Language name",
-            "type": "string"
-          }
-        },
-        "required": [
-          "code",
-          "name"
-        ],
-        "type": "object"
-      },
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "total": {
-      "description": "Total number of supported languages",
-      "type": "number"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "total",
-    "languages"
-  ],
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "languages": {
+      "description": "List of supported languages",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "code": {
+            "description": "Language code",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "description": "Language name",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "code",
+          "name"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "total": {
+      "description": "Total number of supported languages",
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "total",
+    "languages"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {}
+]
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns language codes and names, but this is likely redundant given the output schema exists. No contradiction with annotations; however, no additional behavioral context is disclosed.

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?

The description is two concise sentences: first states the action and scope, second states the return content. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

For a simple listing tool with zero parameters, an output schema, and robust annotations, the description is complete. It accurately communicates the tool's purpose and output, and no further context is needed.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the baseline score for a no-parameter tool is 4.

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?

The description uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'all languages supported by the translation API'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'translate' or 'detect_language' by specifying the tool's unique output of language codes and names.

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?

The description implies usage when one needs the full set of supported languages before using translation or detection tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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

All translate toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several groups of tools are hard to tell apart in practice: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and bet_research all route natural-language questions to similar data sources, and the polymarket_* family plus bet_research heavily overlaps. Individual descriptions are detailed, but an agent navigating this surface will frequently struggle to choose the correct entry point.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming is readable and mostly snake_case, but conventions are mixed: some tools are verb+noun commands (resolve_entity, validate_claim), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, bet_research), and others use product prefixes inconsistently (ask_pipeworx vs pipeworx_feedback vs polymarket_edges). The polymarket_* cluster is consistent, but no clear pattern holds across the whole server.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is past the 25-tool threshold and is especially excessive for a server named 'translate', where only three tools relate to translation. Most of the surface belongs to a broad Pipeworx data/analytics/prediction-market platform that would be better split into separate focused servers.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx-related workflows are fairly well-covered: lookup, grounded research, company profiling, prediction-market analysis, subscriptions, and memory all have usable tool clusters. However, the translation domain implied by the server name is thin and references a deepl_translate tool that is not actually exposed, so there is no single domain that feels fully complete.

Resources