Browse public voices for text-to-speech or speech-to-speech, filter by language or search text, and paginate results to choose a voice before requesting details or a quote.
List public voices for operation tts (default) or sts. Uses bounded local pagination. Read get_voice_detail, then obtain an exact speech quote before generation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| operation | No | tts | |
| page_size | No | ||
| search_text | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are 'public voices' only and the tool 'Uses bounded local pagination,' which is not derivable from the annotations or schema.
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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by pagination and workflow notes. Minimal waste, though the trailing sentence about obtaining a quote drifts slightly from the tool's own scope.
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?
With 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should explain what the parameters filter and what is returned. It covers only the operation mode and pagination style, leaving the agent unable to use lang, search_text, page, or page_size correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It mentions only 'operation tts (default) or sts' and leaves lang, page, page_size, and search_text completely unexplained in both the schema and the description.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (public voices), and names the operation modes tts (default) and sts. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like list_tts_models/list_sts_models since voices are a distinct resource, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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?
Gives a workflow hint ('Read get_voice_detail, then obtain an exact speech quote before generation') and names a sibling, implying sequenced usage. However it gives no guidance on when to pick this over list_tts_models/list_sts_models, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the workflow tip.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.