list_video_voices
List the stock voices available for AI video generation. Pass a voice's id to generate_video.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | No | Video provider (default heygen, currently the only one). |
List the stock voices available for AI video generation. Pass a voice's id to generate_video.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | No | Video provider (default heygen, currently the only one). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully clarifies these are 'stock' voices rather than user-trained ones, but adds nothing about result size or pagination.
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 short sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the downstream usage hint following it.
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?
For a simple zero-required-param list tool with no output schema, the description adequately implies that voice ids are returned and how to use them. Only the exact return shape is left implicit, which is minor here.
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 single optional provider parameter is fully documented in the schema (default heygen). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (stock voices for AI video generation), which an agent can distinguish from the sibling list_video_avatars. It doesn't explicitly say why 'stock' voices differ from trained voice models, but the purpose is clear.
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 second sentence, 'Pass a voice's id to generate_video,' routes the agent downstream but does not say when to call this tool versus alternatives like get_voice_model or train_voice_model. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.