Skip to main content
Glama
FabianIMV

Voice Coach MCP

by FabianIMV
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

record_audio

Records microphone audio to a 16 kHz mono .wav file and returns levels, SNR and warnings so you can check quality before analysis.

Instructions

Records from the computer's microphone and saves a 16 kHz mono .wav.

Args:
    seconds: recording length (max 120 by default). Tell the user before calling.
    name: optional file name (without extension); defaults to date and time.

Returns `audio` (path of the .wav), levels (peak/RMS in dBFS, estimated SNR, % clipping),
`confidence` and `warnings`. The `no_microphone_permission` warning means macOS delivered no
audio: the user must enable the microphone for the app in System Settings.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
secondsYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover mutation/idempotency/destructiveness, so the description is free to add real value — the 120-second cap and the meaning of the no_microphone_permission warning (macOS gave no audio; user must enable mic in System Settings). That is exactly the kind of recovery context annotations cannot carry.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then Args, then Returns — clean structure. The Returns paragraph restates some of what the output schema already exposes, but the warning explanation earns its place.

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 two-parameter capture tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the cap, naming behavior, and the one failure mode an agent cannot infer. Nothing essential is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: seconds is the recording length bounded at 120, name is an optional filename without extension that defaults to date/time. The 'max 120 by default' phrasing is slightly ambiguous about whether 120 is a default or a hard ceiling.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+output format: records from the computer's microphone and saves a 16 kHz mono .wav. No sibling in the list captures audio, so the boundary is immediately obvious.

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?

States an explicit operational rule — 'Tell the user before calling' — and implies the when (capture live audio). It stops short of naming when-not or pointing to transcribe/analyze_pitch as downstream steps, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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