Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
edge-tts-mcp

edge-tts-mcp

by MrEnd3y
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_capabilities

Read-only

Reports supported local speech formats, optional artifacts, and defaults without making network requests, helping clients configure text-to-speech requests correctly.

Instructions

Read local speech formats, optional artifacts and defaults; no network request.

ffmpeg_available checks executable presence, not libopus support. Telegram delivery is the client's responsibility. Long text uses edge-tts internal chunking; increase the tool/client timeout for longer jobs.

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": "get_capabilities"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only and closed-world behavior; the description adds specifics beyond that: no network request, ffmpeg_available checks only executable presence, Telegram delivery is the client's responsibility, and long text uses edge-tts chunking with a timeout warning. These are useful operational traits and do not contradict annotations.

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?

The main purpose is front-loaded and the caveats are compact. The line breaks and note-like phrasing are slightly rough, but no sentence is redundant.

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 low-complexity, zero-parameter read-only probe with an output schema, the description supplies enough operational context about local-only inspection and caveats. It remains incomplete on when-to-use versus siblings, but return values are covered by the output schema.

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?

There are zero parameters, so no parameter semantics are required; the empty schema is self-explanatory. Baseline 4 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?

States a read operation over local speech formats, optional artifacts, and defaults, which tells the agent what resource is involved. It does not mention the sibling tools list_voice or tts, so there is no explicit differentiation.

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 caveats about ffmpeg_available, Telegram delivery, and long-text timeouts, but never states when to call this tool instead of list_voice or tts. An agent must infer that it is a local capability probe.

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