Get Scriptivox pricing information including subscription plans (Free, Pro, Team) and API pay-as-you-go rates. Includes signup URLs. No API key required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that no API key is required, which directly affects invocation. It also discloses that signup URLs are included. The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered; there is no contradiction.
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?
Two concise sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the key invocation detail ('No API key required') placed at the end. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy with the schema or annotations.
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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool, the description provides comprehensive needed context: what data is returned, which plans are included, and authentication requirements. No output schema exists, but the return content is sufficiently described for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the result.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than inventing parameter details.
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 ('Get') and resource ('Scriptivox pricing information') and enumerates concrete contents: subscription plans (Free, Pro, Team), API pay-as-you-go rates, and signup URLs. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinct from broader siblings like get_product_info.
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?
The description gives clear context for when to call the tool ('Get pricing information') and explicitly says 'No API key required,' which is an important usage qualifier. It does not explicitly rule out alternatives such as get_product_info or purchase_plan, but for a simple zero-parameter read tool the guidance is adequate.
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.
The set contains several near-neighbor groups: deprecated aliases duplicate live tools, and docs/billing/financial tools have fuzzy boundaries. Individual descriptions are detailed and resolve most collisions, but matching the right tool among 39 still requires care.
Most tools follow a sensible verb_object style, but the transcribe_* group is inconsistent: transcribe_url/transcribe_upload are verb_object, while transcribe_status/transcribe_cancel/transcribe_delete are really status/cancel/delete operations renamed with a transcribe prefix. The deprecated transcription_status/transcription_url aliases add another naming convention, so the pattern is not reliable across the set.
39 tools is well over the 25+ threshold and creates an overwhelmingly broad surface spanning account management, billing, docs, API jobs, library organization, meeting bots, and automations. Two deprecated duplicates inflate the count further. This would be more coherent split into separate servers or at least pruned of deprecated aliases.
Core API transcription lifecycle is covered, and the library/meeting-bot flows have search, tagging, moving, and audio retrieval. However, there is no user-library deletion/rename, no OAuth-side full-transcript access, local upload is non-functional over the hosted endpoint, and webhook management is documented but not exposed as tools. These gaps force agents to work around missing operations.
