Lists speech-to-speech (STS) channels and parameters so you can pick compatible settings and a public voice_id for synchronous audio generation.
List STS channels and parameters. Select a public voice_id using list_voices with operation=sts. Generation is synchronous and returns the audio directly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds workflow context (voice selection path, synchronous generation), but the synchronous-generation note actually describes generate_sts rather than this listing tool, and nothing is said about the shape or size of the returned list.
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?
Three short sentences with no padding, but the final sentence about synchronous generation and direct audio return is about a different tool and reads as drift rather than front-loaded relevance. The core purpose sentence is correctly placed first.
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?
For a zero-param list tool with no output schema, the description should convey what the returned catalog looks like. It names "channels and parameters" but does not characterize the entries, leaving the agent to discover the return structure on its own.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the schema is trivially complete. Baseline of 4 applies.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("List STS channels and parameters"), which is clearly distinct from sibling list_tts_models and list_video_models. It stops short of explicitly differentiating STS from those siblings, but the domain term does the work.
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?
It gives a useful downstream step ("Select a public voice_id using list_voices with operation=sts") but never states when to call this tool versus list_tts_models or list_voices directly. Usage is implied by the workflow context rather than stated with exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.