List available voices for auto-mode videos. Returns voice ids to pass as voice_id in create_auto_video. Filter by language/gender/search and cap with limit. Voice cloning is not available via the API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max voices (default 20). | |
| gender | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| language | No | e.g. "English". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but disclosure of 'Voice cloning is not available via the API' adds behavioral context. Also explains return value (voice ids). Adequate for a list tool.
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 sentences with no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded; every sentence adds value.
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?
With no output schema and 4 parameters, the description covers what the tool returns, how to use filters/limit, and a key limitation. Could mention default limit behavior but not a major gap.
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 50%; description adds meaning by specifying filters (language/gender/search) and limit usage, compensating for undocumented parameters like gender and search.
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-resource pair ('List available voices') and distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., list_avatars) by specifying 'for auto-mode videos' and tying to create_auto_video.
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?
Clear context: use when you need voice IDs for auto videos. Provides filtering options but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives among siblings.
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.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose. There is no overlap between tools like check_account and check_configuration, or between the two create video modes. All list tools target different entities, and the remaining tools serve unique roles (estimate credits, get video, wait for video, render preview).
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, such as check_account, create_auto_video, list_models. This makes it easy to predict tool names and understand their purpose.
With 13 tools, the number is well-scoped for a video generation API. It covers setup, account management, creation (two modes), credit estimation, retrieval, listing of various resources, and video waiting. No tool feels redundant or missing.
The tool surface covers the core workflow well: configuration check, account info, video creation (both auto and manual), credit estimation, retrieval, and listing. However, there are no tools for updating or deleting videos, nor for managing resources beyond listing (e.g., creating avatars or brand kits). These are minor gaps.
