Atlas Primer Voice Roleplay
Server Details
Create real-time AI voice roleplay simulations and behavioral assessments on Atlas Primer.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
- URL
- ChatGPT
- –
- Claude
- –
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
With only one tool exposed, there is no possible overlap or misselection risk. The single tool's purpose (create a voice roleplay simulation) is unambiguous.
The name follows a clear verb_noun snake_case convention (create_roleplay_simulation) that would scale predictably. Consistency cannot be fully verified with a single tool, so it falls just short of a 5.
One tool is thin even for this narrow purpose; there is no companion operation such as listing, fetching, or checking simulation status. It is borderline rather than clearly mismatched, since the core action is covered.
The surface only supports creation and returns a URL, with no tools to retrieve, list, update, or delete simulations. Agents have no way to inspect or manage what they created, leaving a significant lifecycle gap.
Available Tools
1 toolcreate_roleplay_simulationCreate Voice Roleplay SimulationARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Creates a personalized real-time AI voice roleplay simulation on Atlas Primer from a natural-language scenario description. Returns a direct, clickable simulation URL requiring no API keys or pre-registration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompt | Yes | Full 1-paragraph scenario description defining who the user is, who the counterpart is, the core conflict or disagreement, and the stakes. | |
| language | No | ISO-639-1 language code such as "en", "is", "es", or "ja" (default: "en"). | |
| user_role | No | Learner role and perspective (e.g., "Senior Account Executive"). | |
| character_name | No | Counterpart name and title (e.g., "Elena Rostova, VP of Procurement"). | |
| character_role | No | Counterpart functional role or authority level. | |
| character_gender | No | Speech synthesis voice gender ("male" or "female"). | |
| failure_criteria | No | Single sentence defining what triggers conversation failure. | |
| success_criteria | No | Single unambiguous sentence defining measurable conversation success. | |
| challenge_keywords | No | 3 to 4 comma-separated behavioral resistance traits (e.g., "skeptical, defensive, budget-constrained"). | |
| max_duration_minutes | No | Maximum duration in minutes between 3 and 30 (default: 10). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Primary clickable simulation URL using Base64URL fragment (#d=...). |
| payload | Yes | Sanitized simulation payload parameters. |
| query_url | Yes | Fallback clickable simulation URL using plain query parameters (?prompt=...). |
| encoded_token | Yes | Base64URL-encoded JSON scenario token. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful details about real-time interaction, the clickable URL, and access without API keys or pre-registration. However, 'Creates' directly contradicts readOnlyHint=true, leaving the agent with incompatible claims about whether the tool modifies its environment.
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 compact sentences front-load the action, resource, platform, and input style, then state the returned URL and access requirements. There is no filler or redundant enumeration of schema fields.
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?
Together with the fully documented input schema and existing output schema, the description covers the essential creation workflow and result well enough for invocation. It does not clarify session persistence, link lifetime, or provisioning side effects, and the read-only annotation conflict leaves an important behavioral question unresolved.
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 100%, and the schema already documents all ten parameters, including formats, defaults, constraints, and examples. The description generally references the scenario prompt but adds no further parameter syntax or guidance about interactions among optional fields, so the high-coverage baseline applies.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: it creates a personalized, real-time AI voice roleplay simulation on Atlas Primer from a scenario description. It also clarifies the result as a direct simulation URL, and there are no siblings requiring further differentiation.
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 intended context—creating an Atlas Primer voice roleplay from a natural-language scenario—is clear, and the lack of API-key or pre-registration requirements lowers the barrier to use. It does not provide explicit when-not guidance or explain when an existing simulation should be reused instead of creating another.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
1 tool update
- First observed
create_roleplay_simulation
Related MCP Connectors
Run AI interviews, simulated personas and coaching sessions on JobMojito.
Give your AI a face, a voice, and a personality. 3D avatars with custom personas.
AI voice interviewer: create roles, screen CVs, schedule interviews, read scored reports.
AI-moderated voice interviews with your customers, delivering themes and insights
Related MCP Servers
- MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceCreates synthetic user profiles from research data to validate service designs through natural conversation.14MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to conduct phone interviews, deliver notifications, and manage HR communications through natural voice conversations using Twilio, Deepgram, and OpenAI.3ISC
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceNatural voice conversations for AI assistants that brings human-like voice interactions to Claude, ChatGPT, and other LLMs through the Model Context Protocol (MCP).9,639 PyPI1,434MIT
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.