Skip to main content
Glama

mcp

by com.unifically

List resources

list_resources
Read-only

List a model provider's voices so you can pass the right id to a generation tool. Default 'elevenlabs-voices' (the voices for generate_audio); also covers Kling and Google Veo voices. Returns each voice's id and name. (This is Unifically's resource catalog; it is not the MCP protocol's resources/list.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax items to return. Default 50.
queryNoFilter the voice list by name/labels — space-separated words, all must match (e.g. 'british female'). Applies to all voice lists.
categoryNoElevenLabs voices only: which set to return. Default 'premade' (~21 stable official voices); 'all' includes the large shared library.
resourceNoWhich provider's voice list to return. Default 'elevenlabs-voices'. Options: 'elevenlabs-voices' (ElevenLabs TTS/dialogue/voice-changer voices — use the voice_id in generate_audio), 'kling-voices' (Kling video voices — use the id as voice_id), 'veo-voices' (Google Veo voices — use the id as 'voice'; requires an image/character reference). Aliases 'tts'/'kling'/'veo' work. NOTE: this is Unifically's provider-resource catalog, distinct from the MCP protocol's resources/list.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds value by explaining return data (id and name) and the scope of resources covered. It also disambiguates from protocol resources, which is useful. No contradictions found.

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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes essential clarifications (default, scope, and protocol distinction) without any fluff. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (read-only, optional params, no output schema), the description fully covers the necessary context: what it returns, the providers it covers, and how to use the results. It also correctly distinguishes from the protocol's resources/list, making it self-contained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description enriches parameter meaning by tying them to usage: it explains how to pass the returned ids to generation tools (e.g., 'use the voice_id in generate_audio'), clarifies the 'resource' options, and notes that 'category' applies only to ElevenLabs. This goes beyond the schema's basic field definitions.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: listing a model provider's voices to supply ids for generation tools. It specifies the default provider (elevenlabs-voices) and differentiates from the MCP protocol's resources/list, making it distinct from sibling tools like list_models and list_tasks.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Usage context is provided via the default and the explicit link to generation tools (e.g., 'the voices for generate_audio'). It also tells users not to confuse this with the MCP protocol's resources/list. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or alternative tool references beyond that distinction.

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

All mcp toolsInspect
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

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action-resource pair, and overlaps are explicitly resolved in the descriptions (e.g., generate_video vs edit_video vs extend_video vs upscale_media are all cross-referenced). The only minor overlap — sound effects in both generate_audio and generate_music — is disambiguated by pointing to the right tool ('For music, use generate_music'). An agent would rarely misroute a request.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool follows a strict snake_case verb_noun pattern (generate_*, list_*, get_*, check_balance, dry_run_cost). Verb choice is predictable: generate_ for creation, extend_/edit_/upscale_ for refinement, list_/get_ for retrieval. The naming convention is uniform and mnemonic throughout.

Tool Count5/5

14 tools sits comfortably in the well-scoped band and is proportional to the broad multi-modal scope (video, image, music, audio, plus account management and file upload). Each tool earns its place — upload_file handles a real constraint, dry_run_cost and check_balance pair for spend control, and get_task/list_tasks cover async operations.

Completeness4/5

The lifecycle coverage is near-complete for the media generation domain: video (generate/edit/extend/upscale), image (generate/upscale), music (generate/transform/split), audio (TTS/SFX/dialogue/STT), plus task management, cost estimation, model discovery, and voice listing. The only meaningful gap is the absence of a task-cancellation endpoint for long-running jobs — though this is arguably a provider limitation. Minor edge cases, like the lack of a way to list voices from all providers (only ElevenLabs, Kling, and Veo are covered), are noted but by no means blockers.

Resources