Skip to main content
Glama

get_voice

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch full metadata + a preview MP3 URL for a single voice. Use after the user picks one from search_voices / list_provider_voices, or when they paste a voice ID. Read-only — does NOT consume credits.

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": {
      "provider": "<provider>",
      "voiceId": "<voiceId>"
    },
    "name": "get_voice"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
voiceIdYesProvider-specific voice ID (e.g. "21m00Tcm4TlvDq8ikWAM" for ElevenLabs Rachel).
providerYesProvider slug, e.g. "elevenlabs".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a non-redundant operational fact — "does NOT consume credits" — which is not derivable from annotations and matters for cost-sensitive agents. Minor gap: no mention of what happens for an invalid provider/voiceId pair.

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, zero waste, with the capability statement and the return value front-loaded before the usage routing and cost note. Every clause earns its place.

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?

A simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema; the description covers what it does, when to call it, what it returns, and that it is free. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, with both provider and voiceId documented including an example format, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes "voice ID" in passing and adds no new semantics such as case sensitivity or provider/ID compatibility rules. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Fetch full metadata + a preview MP3 URL for a single voice") and even names what the return contains. It is clearly distinguishable from search_voices and list_provider_voices, which return collections rather than one voice.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly names both the trigger ("after the user picks one from search_voices / list_provider_voices") and the alternate trigger ("when they paste a voice ID"), routing the agent to the correct sibling tools. No inference required.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources