Rengi Forge

audio_tools_voice

Make a voice recording or TTS take game-ready: rumble high-passed, noise reduced against the measured floor, sibilance tamed, dialogue loudness (-18 LUFS) with a -1 dBTP ceiling, and a long take split into one file per phrase with a CSV cue sheet. Price: $0.10 USDC via x402, charged only on success. Part of Audio tools: Make generated or recorded sounds game-ready: trim silence and match loudness (LUFS with a true-peak ceiling), seamless loops for music and ambience with loop points, and SFX variations.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "audio_tools_voice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`audio`	No	Audio file as base64 (wav, mp3, ogg, flac, m4a).
`split`	No	One file per phrase.
`format`	No		ogg
`denoise`	No	0 gentle, 1 strong. Strong denoising can make a voice sound metallic.
`audioUrl`	No	Audio file URL.
`targetLufs`	No	Dialogue loudness; -18 LUFS is a common game VO target.
`minSilenceMs`	No	A pause at least this long separates two phrases.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries real behavioral load and does well: it discloses the pricing model ($0.10 USDC via x402) and, importantly, that it is 'charged only on success', plus the return shape ('one file per phrase with a CSV cue sheet'). It does not detail whether a denoise/format choice changes output or failure modes beyond the cost note.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The processing chain is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact pricing line. The trailing 'Part of Audio tools' sentence is somewhat long and repeat-y, but it earns partial credit by orienting the agent within the tool family.

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?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema, 7-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the processing pipeline, cost/charging behavior, and the split output with cue sheet. Missing only finer return-format detail, which is largely implied by the cue-sheet mention.

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 high (86%), so the schema already documents audio, split, format, denoise, targetLufs and minSilenceMs including ranges and caveats. The description reinforces the loudness and split semantics but adds little syntax or meaning beyond what the schema properties state, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Make a voice recording or TTS take game-ready') and enumerates the exact transformation chain (high-pass, denoise, sibilance, -18 LUFS with -1 dBTP, phrase splitting with CSV cue sheet). It clearly distinguishes itself from the looped-music and SFX-variation siblings by naming voice content as its domain.

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?

The framing around 'voice recording or TTS take' tells the agent this is for dialogue/VO content, and the family sentence implicitly separates it from loop and variation tools. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead for non-voice audio, so routing relies on inference rather than a stated rule.

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

All Rengi Forge tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?