TTS voiceover. Single (voiceId) or 2-speaker (speakers). ElevenLabs/Google. No voiceId? Call audio_voices_show first (or audio_voices_list for agent-only lookup).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| model | No | ||
| speed | No | ||
| visible | No | ||
| voiceId | No | ||
| speakers | No | ||
| stability | No | ||
| temperature | No | ||
| folderReference | No | ||
| similarityBoost | No | ||
| useSpeakerBoost | No | ||
| systemInstruction | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide no hints (all false), and the description adds no behavioral details beyond the obvious fact that it generates TTS audio. There is no mention of side effects, costs, permissions, rate limits, or what the tool returns. The description fails to disclose any non-obvious behavior, leaving the agent without important context.
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?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses three short sentences to convey the essential information, and every clause adds value. While it could be slightly more structured (e.g., grouping parameters), it is efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotation hints), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter relationships, model selection criteria, or typical usage patterns beyond the voiceId prerequisite. This is insufficient for a tool with this many options.
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?
With 12 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it only partially explains 'voiceId' and 'speakers' (single vs dual). It does not explain 'model', 'speed', 'stability', 'folderReference', or others. The mention of modes is helpful but insufficient for the full parameter set.
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 clearly states 'TTS voiceover', which is a specific verb-noun pair. It further specifies single or dual-speaker modes and mentions ElevenLabs/Google as providers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like audio_music_generate and audio_voices_list, making its purpose unmistakable.
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 description gives explicit conditional guidance: 'No voiceId? Call audio_voices_show first (or audio_voices_list for agent-only lookup).' This informs the agent of the prerequisite step needed before invoking this tool. However, it does not provide general when-to-use/not-use alternatives compared to other tools, but the voice ID guidance is genuinely useful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.