soclo_hosted_voices_quoteFREE quote for designing a reusable voice for one of the owner’s saved actors. Show the exact price and get the owner’s approval before soclo_hosted_voices_design. Keep the input text unchanged: the design must carry the same input, the returned quoteId and expectedCredits. Pricing unavailable stops new design, even for exempt owners. No paid fallback or voice allocation cap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / input / properties / model / descriptionAdded value: +"multilingual: steady voice design that works across many languages. expressive: the newest, most expressive design model."Input schema / properties / input / properties / model / enumPrevious value: -[
- "eleven_multilingual_ttv_v2",
- "eleven_ttv_v3"
-]New value: +[
+ "multilingual",
+ "expressive"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the call is free, it returns a quoteId and expectedCredits, and a pricing outage blocks design regardless of owner exemption. The closing fragment 'No paid fallback or voice allocation cap' is terse and leaves the agent to infer its consequences, which keeps this short of a 5.
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?
Front-loaded with purpose and price expectation, then constraints; nearly every clause carries an actionable rule. A few items are compressed into fragments ('No paid fallback or voice allocation cap'), which trades clarity for density.
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 no output schema, the description usefully names the returned quoteId and expectedCredits and explains the approval gate before design. What an agent still cannot derive is the shape and meaning of the required nested input fields.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% on a nested object with five required inner fields, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. It clarifies that the input must be copied verbatim into the later design call, but never explains what description, previewText, or language should contain.
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 and resource: a FREE price quote for designing a reusable voice for one of the owner's saved actors. It explicitly names the downstream sibling soclo_hosted_voices_design, so an agent can separate quoting from actually designing without inspecting either schema.
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?
Gives an explicit ordering rule (call this, show the exact price, get owner approval, then call soclo_hosted_voices_design) plus the pass-through requirement to reuse the same input, quoteId and expectedCredits. It also names a hard stop condition: if pricing is unavailable, new design is blocked even for exempt owners.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.