tourwright_voicesLists available text-to-speech voices and the engines that support them. Choose a voice matching your script language before rendering a narrated tour video.
Text-to-speech voices available on the server and which engines work. Use a voice whose language matches the script.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that results include which engines work, hinting at the returned data, but it says nothing about how voices are identified or how the engine/voice relationship is expressed — information an agent needs to actually use the output.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource being listed, with no filler. The phrasing 'and which engines work' is slightly compressed and could be clearer, but nothing is wasted.
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?
The description needn't explain return shape in detail given the tool's simplicity, but it does flag the two things returned (voices and working engines) and adds the selection rule that motivates calling it. Nothing essential to invoking a zero-argument lister is missing.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The absence of arguments is consistent with the description's framing of a plain enumeration call.
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 names the resource specifically (text-to-speech voices on the server) plus a secondary payload (engine compatibility), which is more than the title 'List voices' conveys. It is distinguishable from siblings like render, validate, and job, though it never explicitly states that it is the discovery/enumeration step.
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 second sentence gives a downstream selection rule ('use a voice whose language matches the script'), which implies this is a lookup step to run before rendering. There is no explicit when-to-call guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no statement of prerequisites or that no arguments are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.