Skip to main content
Glama
ShevinuM

transcript-tts

by ShevinuM
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one lists available voices, the other converts text to speech. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'list_voices' and 'text_to_speech'. The naming is predictable and uniform.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels minimal but appropriately scoped for a simple TTS purpose. It is on the lower end of the acceptable range as noted in the calibration guide.

    Completeness4/5

    The core workflow is covered: list voices to select one, then synthesize text. Minor gaps like streamed audio or additional output formats could be added, but the essential lifecycle is complete.

  • Average 4.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions converting to MP3, using Edge's neural voices, and saving to disk, but omits behaviors like file overwriting, return values, error handling, or network dependencies. Some useful context is added, but the behavior is not fully disclosed.

    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?

    The description is two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and includes the key usage hint about list_voices. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information.

    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?

    The tool is relatively simple, but with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is only partially complete. It covers the main function and prerequisite, but does not address filename default behavior, return value, or format for rate/pitch/volume. These gaps are notable for a tool with this complexity.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters2/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'text' and 'voice' implicitly ('transcript/text' and 'specific voice/language/accent'), but does not add meaning for rate, pitch, volume, or filename. The description only covers two of six parameters, leaving the others semantically vague.

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

    Purpose5/5

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

    The description clearly states the tool converts text to an MP3 file using Microsoft Edge's TTS voices and saves it to disk. It uses a specific verb ('Convert'), names the resource ('transcript/text'), and the output ('MP3 audio recording'), which distinguishes it from sibling list_voices.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines5/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description explicitly instructs users to call list_voices first if they want a specific voice/language/accent, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling. This satisfies the 'alternatives' criterion.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists voices and optionally filters by locale prefix, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. It does not disclose error handling or return size, but for a simple listing tool this is adequate coverage.

    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?

    The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the action, resource, and optional filtering behavior, earning its place entirely.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    The tool is simple (one optional parameter, read-only listing) and an output schema exists. The description covers all essential usage context, and the sibling tool name helps situate it within the Edge TTS workflow. No significant gaps remain.

    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?

    The schema provides only the parameter name and default with no description. The description compensates by explaining that the locale_prefix is an optional filter and gives concrete examples ('en-US', 'ja'), clarifying both the format and the intended usage.

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

    Purpose5/5

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

    The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available Edge TTS voices'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool text_to_speech, which generates speech. The optional locale prefix filter is also stated, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description implies when to use this tool: to discover available Edge TTS voices with optional locale filtering, which is a prerequisite for selecting a voice for text_to_speech. It does not explicitly mention the alternative, but the purpose makes the distinction clear. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, but the context is easy to infer.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

transcript-tts MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

transcript-tts MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ShevinuM/transcript-tts'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server