AIGigLab MCP Server

create_voice_clone

Clone a voice from audio samples. Provide a name and local file paths to generate a new synthetic voice for text-to-speech.

Instructions

Clone a new voice from audio samples.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "files": "<files>"
    },
    "name": "create_voice_clone"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Name of the voice to create
`files`	Yes	List of ABSOLUTE LOCAL PATHS to audio samples on the Windows machine (e.g., 'C:/Users/name/Downloads/sample.mp3'). Do NOT use virtual paths like /mnt/.
`description`	No	Description of the voice
`files_content`	No	List of Base64 encoded file contents (Alternative to 'files' for drag-and-drop)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Jul 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states purpose; missing details on process, requirements, or implications of cloning. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no redundant information. Efficiently conveys core purpose.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and description is too sparse for a complex cloning operation. Missing info on return values, duration, or expected behavior.

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 100%, and the description adds no additional parameter insights beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score applies.

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?

Description states verb+resource clearly: 'clone a new voice from audio samples.' It is specific but does not differentiate from the sibling 'fish_create_voice_clone', which appears very similar.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fish_create_voice_clone' or 'synthesize_voice'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information.

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