Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kani MCP Server

Kani MCP Server

by Alexxanddr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_voice_actors

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists pronunciation voice actors, letting you filter by IDs, page cursors, or updated time to find available audio voices for WaniKani vocabulary.

Instructions

List pronunciation voice actors

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_voice_actors"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsNo
page_after_idNo
updated_afterNo
page_before_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.4

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds nothing behavioral beyond the purpose: it does not disclose the pagination model implied by page_after_id/page_before_id, pagination limits, or whether updated_after filters the listing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise for a tool with four parameters and no output schema. Brevity here reflects missing content, not efficient structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given four undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin to enable correct invocation. An agent would not know that the parameters support ID filtering and cursor-based pagination without reading the raw schema and guessing at semantics.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are four parameters and 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions none of them—ids, page_after_id, page_before_id, or updated_after—leaving the agent with no explanation of what these parameters do or how they interact.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (List) and resource (pronunciation voice actors), so the agent can tell what the tool returns. It does not differentiate from the many sibling list_* tools, but none of those siblings cover voice actors, so the risk of confusion is low.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is a straightforward paginated listing tool purely from the name and schema.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools