TestMyVibes

Synthesize a script with Hume Octave, return audio URL

synthesize_voiceover

Generates a voiceover from text using Hume Octave TTS. Audio uploaded to Spaces, signed URL returned (24h TTL by default). Charged in credits up-front based on script length (use quote_voiceover for a preview). Best for demo-video narration, tutorial audio, and any one-shot batch TTS. NOT a real-time conversational voice (use Hume EVI for that, different product). Voice options: pass voiceId for a specific Hume voice clone, or omit to use the deployment's default narrator (HUME_OCTAVE_VOICE_ID env var).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes	Script text to read aloud. Max 5000 chars per call; split longer scripts.
`voiceId`	No	Hume voice id. Omit to use the deployment's default narrator.
`description`	No	Optional prosody steering, e.g. "warm and conversational, slight pause before the punchline". Biases delivery without changing the script.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	No	Tool result payload (JSON object)

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Describes charging credits upfront based on script length, signed URL with 24h TTL, and non-real-time nature. Annotations are generic, so description provides necessary behavioral context without contradictions.

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?

Concise paragraph with front-loaded action, no fluff. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage, alternatives, parameter hints, and limitations.

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?

Covers behavior, usage, parameter details, credits, TTL, and output (audio URL). With output schema present, return values are documented. Complete for a TTS tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so description adds no new meaning beyond schema. It reiterates default narrator for voiceId and optional prosody steering, but schema already captures these. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it generates a voiceover from text using Hume Octave TTS, specifies return of audio URL, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like quote_voiceover and Hume EVI.

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 lists best use cases (demo-video narration, tutorial audio, one-shot batch TTS) and explicitly says NOT for real-time conversational voice, directing to Hume EVI. Also references quote_voiceover for credit preview.

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

All TestMyVibes tools Inspect

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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The tools cover a wide range of functionalities, but each has a clearly distinct purpose. For example, submit_test, submit_test_batch, submit_combo, and submit_interaction_scene are all different types of submissions with unique parameters. However, the sheer number of tools (43) might cause some initial confusion, but descriptors resolve ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., list_projects, create_project, get_test_results). The only exception is 'whoami', which is a common idiom and does not break the pattern. Overall, naming is highly predictable.

Tool Count3/5

43 tools is on the high side for a single server. The domain is broad (testing, worker marketplace, credits, cards, feedback, video), so the count is justifiable. However, it borders on being overwhelming, and some tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple submit_* variants).

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers core workflows like project creation, test submission, result retrieval, worker management, and credit operations. However, there are gaps: no update or delete for projects, no delete for worker offerings, and no user-facing combo editing (though combos are predefined). These are minor but noticeable.

Resources

Need Help?