Skip to main content
Glama

voice-quality-api

by io.github.Gomess8
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Server Details

Measure voice/VoIP path quality -> estimated MOS + live network metrics

Glama couldn't complete the latest health check. If this server requires authentication, missing or expired test credentials may be the cause. A test profile lets Glama authenticate for health checks and discover tools; it is separate from your personal connections.

If you are the author, claim ownership, then add or update a test profile under Admin → Test Profile.

Status
Unhealthy
Uptime
16.0% over 38 days
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
URL
Repository
Gomess8/API
GitHub Stars
0
Server Listing
Voice Quality API

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusing it with another. The tool's purpose is crystal clear from its name and description.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool follows a clear verb_noun pattern ('measure_voice_quality') that is descriptive and consistent with best practices. There are no other tool names to conflict or disagree with.

Tool Count3/5

One tool for a voice-quality API feels a bit thin, though the scope is narrow enough that it could be sufficient. It doesn't reach the level of an extreme mismatch because the tool is substantive and not trivial.

Completeness4/5

The tool covers the core domain of measuring voice quality, returning both MOS and live network metrics. Minor gaps could exist (e.g., no comparison or history tools), but the primary use case is well-served.

Available Tools

1 tool
measure_voice_qualityMeasure voice qualityAInspect

Measure the quality of a voice/VoIP path to a destination and return the estimated MOS (ITU-T G.107 E-model) plus live network metrics (RTT, jitter, packet loss). Useful before routing or starting a voice-agent call. The MOS is an objective estimate, not a perceptual measurement.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fromNoOptional probe location selectors, e.g. ['eu-west','us-east']
codecNoNarrowband codec to modelG711
targetYesIP, host, or media endpoint to measure toward

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose key behavioral facts: return values and the important caveat that MOS is an objective estimate, not a perceptual measurement. However, it does not mention potential side effects such as whether test traffic is sent, or any access/rate limitations, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy: the first states the core action and outputs, the second gives usage context, and the third adds a necessary caveat. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains what will be returned and includes a relevant use case. The schema covers all parameter semantics. The only missing elements are explicit statements about side effects or prerequisites, but these are not critical for a moderate-complexity measurement 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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific details, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Measure') and resource ('quality of a voice/VoIP path to a destination') and explicitly lists the outputs (MOS, RTT, jitter, packet loss). It is unambiguous and self-contained, with no confusion about what the tool does.

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?

It clearly states when to use the tool: 'Useful before routing or starting a voice-agent call.' There are no alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the context is specific enough to guide an agent's decision.

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. 1 tool update
    • First observedmeasure_voice_quality

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources