Skip to main content
Glama

Fattly

by io.github.industriesfatty-spec
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

fattly_clone_voice

Voice: either clone a NEW voice from a sample and speak text with it, or REUSE a saved voice (cheaper). Use only voices you have the right to use.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesWhat the voice should say.
consentYesMust be true. By setting it you confirm that you have the rights to, and the consent of, every person who is visible or audible in the materials you provide. For a voice: it is your own voice or you have the speaker's consent.
voiceIdNoId of a voice you saved earlier — reuse it instead of cloning (cheaper).
saveNameNoIf set when cloning, saves the voice under this name for reuse.
sampleUrlNoVoice sample to clone — a fal URL. Required when cloning a new voice.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / consent
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Must be true. By setting it you confirm that you have the rights to, and the consent of, every person who is visible or audible in the materials you provide. For a voice: it is your own voice or you have the speaker's consent.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "text"
-]New value: +[
+  "text",
+  "consent"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already disclose the write/non-idempotent/non-destructive profile. The description adds the rights/consent obligation and the cost trade-off between paths, which is useful. However it says nothing about credit consumption, latency, or what happens to a saved voice (overwrite, retention), so it adds only moderate context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the resource and both modes, with the constraint appended last. No filler and no duplicated schema text.

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 5-parameter generative tool with no output schema, the description covers the modes, the consent gate, and the cost differential; the return value (audio) is implied by 'speak text.' It could be more complete on cost/credits, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so all five parameters (including consent and sampleUrl requirements) are already documented. The description's only added semantic value is the clone-vs-reuse framing, which the schema itself already conveys via voiceId and saveName. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (clone or reuse a voice) and clarifies it also synthesizes speech from text, covering both operating modes in one line. No sibling tool touches voice cloning, so this is unambiguous within the tool set.

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 description explicitly frames the two paths — clone a NEW voice from a sample vs REUSE a saved voice (cheaper) — giving the agent a selection criterion via the cost hint. It also states a rights/consent precondition. It stops short of naming exact parameter combinations or when cloning is strictly required, so it is clear context but not a full when/when-not matrix.

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

All Fattly toolsInspect
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