set_character_voiceBind a TTS voice to a character asset — required before generate_voiceover for every character with dialogue (the narrator's voice is separate: set_narrator_voice). Browse ids with list_voices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_id | Yes | Character asset ID, from list_assets | |
| voice_id | Yes | TTS voice ID, from list_voices (use the provider matching the project's voice_tts_provider) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description doesn't contradict. Description adds context that it's a prerequisite binding, but lacks details on whether binding overwrites existing voices or affects other tools.
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?
Highly concise: two sentences that immediately state purpose and prerequisites with no superfluous words.
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?
For a simple binding tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, prerequisites, and parameter sourcing. No gaps identified.
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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description doesn't add new semantics beyond what's in the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Bind a TTS voice to a character asset'), the resource ('character asset'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like set_narrator_voice by noting the narrator's voice is separate.
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?
Explicitly states when to use ('required before generate_voiceover for every character with dialogue') and when not to (narrator handled by set_narrator_voice). Also provides guidance on browsing IDs with list_voices.
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.
Several tool families overlap in purpose, such as await_jobs/get_workflow_status/get_pipeline_progress, update_segment_content/update_segment_prompts, director_note/project_director_note, and scan_script/rescan_voice_blocks. The descriptions do a good job distinguishing them, but an agent must read carefully to avoid misselection, and there are more than a couple of confusable pairs.
The set overwhelmingly follows a verb_noun snake_case convention with clear prefixes like get_, list_, set_, update_, create_, and delete_. Minor exceptions such as director_note, project_director_note, browse_audio_library, and whoami keep it from being perfectly consistent.
At 72 tools, this is far beyond the 50+ extreme range and creates a heavy navigation burden for an agent. Even though the pipeline is complex, this many tools is not well-scoped for an MCP surface.
The surface covers the full script-to-export pipeline: styles, assets, voices, storyboards, segments, scenes, and rendering all have substantial lifecycle support. Some gaps exist—no delete_channel, delete_segment, delete_voice_block, or delete_provider_key—but most missing operations can be worked around through existing tools.