Discover all available service providers and their voice options in a single response, enabling quick comparison and selection for your voice agent needs.
Comprehensive response with services and voices in one payload. (Tags: Providers)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds that the response is comprehensive and bundles services and voices into one payload, which is useful context not present in annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination, authentication, rate limits, or what 'services' specifically covers. Annotations already indicate read-only behavior, so the bar for additional transparency is partially met.
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?
The description is extremely concise, with one meaningful sentence and a tag. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, making it quick to parse.
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 is incomplete for a 0-parameter tool with no output schema. It fails to clarify what 'services' means, whether it includes all provider types, or how this tool relates to sibling listing tools. A complete description should at least state that it lists all providers in one call, serving as a combined endpoint.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics (100% coverage). The description need not explain parameters; a baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.
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 'Comprehensive response with services and voices in one payload' lacks a clear verb and does not explicitly state that the tool lists all providers. The tag 'Providers' hints at the resource, but the purpose is vague and could apply to several sibling tools.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like listLLMProviders or listVoices, nor does it provide any exclusions or preferred contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.