google-flow-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List character voices

flow_list_voices

Read-only

List the voices available for assigning to AI characters in a Google Flow project, using a project ID from your project list.

Instructions

Voices that can be assigned to a character.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "flow_list_voices"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes	Flow project id (from flow_list_projects).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond it: no note on whether the list is global or project-scoped, no ordering, no result size. The 'assignable to a character' clause is the only piece of extra context.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single short fragment with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, and it is not front-loaded with an action verb an agent can key on.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a trivial read-only lister with one fully described parameter and no output schema, the minimal description is arguably sufficient, but it still leaves the agent guessing whether voices are global or scoped to project_id.

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?

The single project_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage, including its origin 'from flow_list_projects'). The description adds no parameter meaning, so the schema carries the load and baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The fragment 'Voices that can be assigned to a character' identifies the resource but supplies no verb, so the agent must infer 'list' from the tool name. It does not differentiate this listing from siblings like flow_list_models or flow_list_projects beyond the resource noun.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. The only implicit hint is that the returned voices are character-assignable, which the agent could infer from the name alone.

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