CutClip.one

shot.revoice

Re-voice a take that has native speech (made with generateAudio on a model like Seedance 2.5, Kling O3 or Wan 3): ElevenLabs' voice changer converts the speech to the speaker's voice and keeps its timing, so the lips still match. One voice for the whole track — for single-speaker shots; ambience in the take may change. The result is a new take (replaces the source in the clip if it's there; undoable). Costs credits per minute of audio. Poll generation.list with shotId.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "shotId": "<shotId>"
    },
    "name": "shot.revoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`model`	No	eleven-sts-v2 (default)
`dryRun`	No	Only preview the speaker, voice, line and cost; nothing is charged
`shotId`	Yes
`voiceId`	No	Override the speaker's voice (voice.list)
`projectId`	Yes
`takeAssetId`	No	The take to rework (a video from generation.list). Defaults to the take in the shot's clip

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the transformation (ElevenLabs voice changer), that timing is preserved so lips match, that ambience may change, that a new take is created and the source is replaced in the clip if present, that it is undoable, that it costs credits per minute, and that the agent must poll generation.list with shotId. The main omission is error/failure behavior and any permission requirements.

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?

Five dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and preconditions, then side effects, cost, and polling. Every clause carries actionable information: no filler, no tautology.

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 paid, asynchronous, mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, reversibility, cost, and the polling workflow. It leaves out return-value shape and failure/auth details, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description adds context for the take-selection parameter by requiring native speech and pointing to generation.list for polling. However, it does not add meaning to model, dryRun, or voiceId beyond what the schema already documents, so it sits at the baseline for a moderately covered schema.

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 ('Re-voice a take') and immediately pins down the required input state: native speech generated with generateAudio on named models. That distinguishes it from siblings like shot.lipsync and voice.generate without opening schemas.

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?

Gives a clear applicability precondition ('take that has native speech... Seedance 2.5, Kling O3 or Wan 3') and a scope constraint ('One voice for the whole track — for single-speaker shots'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools for multi-speaker or non-native-speech cases, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All CutClip.one tools Inspect

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.