Generate speech audio from text or files and list available local TTS voices for video editing workflows.
Generate speech audio or list available Hyperframes local TTS voices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| speed | No | ||
| voice | No | ||
| language | No | ||
| overwrite | No | Explicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected. | |
| list_voices | No | ||
| output_path | No | ||
| text_or_file | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.4Input schema / properties / overwriteAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "description": "Explicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected.",
+ "title": "Overwrite",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v1.16.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev1.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about file writing, overwriting behavior, or permission/error conditions. A mutation tool with 7 optional parameters and no safety profile leaves the agent guessing about side effects.
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?
A single compact sentence with the main action front-loaded, so nothing is wasted. But the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency given the tool's 7 parameters and dual mode.
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?
Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but for a 7-parameter tool with zero required params and two distinct modes, the description leaves critical gaps—how text_or_file, output_path, and list_voices interact is undocumented. It is far too thin for this complexity.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 14% (just the overwrite field), and the description adds no parameter meaning—nothing explains text_or_file, output_path, voice, language, or speed semantics. Only 'voices' loosely maps to the voice/list_voices parameters.
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?
Names a specific verb+resource ('Generate speech audio') plus a second mode ('list available Hyperframes local TTS voices'), so the agent can tell what it does. It stops short of differentiating from close siblings like audio_synthesize, sound_voice_batch, or hyperframes_transcribe.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this over audio_synthesize or sound_voice_batch, which occupy nearly identical territory. The 'or list' phrasing implies list_voices mode exists but never states when to use it versus generating audio.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.