A
licenseB
qualityD
maintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that provides text-to-speech capabilities using the Kokoro TTS model, offering multiple voice options and customizable speech parameters.
4
21 npm
2
MIT
VOICEVOX MCP Server
voicevox-mcp
Este proyecto es un servidor MCP (Model Context Protocol) que trabaja con el motor VOICEVOX para sintetizar voz y obtener información del hablante. Se implementa en TypeScript y utiliza el SDK MCP.
función
Obtener información de los altavoces para el motor VOICEVOX (/speakers)
Sintetizar texto a voz en un altavoz específico y reproducirlo localmente (/speak)
Sólo Mac
configuración
Iniciando el motor VOICEVOX (se recomienda Docker)
docker compose up -dEsto iniciará el motor VOICEVOX en localhost:50021.
Related MCP server: AivisSpeech MCP Server
Instalar y crear dependencias
npm install
npm run build Cómo utilizar
Ejemplo de configuración del cursor
{
"mcpServers": {
"voicevox-mcp": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["${Path to Repository}/dist/index.js"],
"env": {
"SPEAKER_ID": 8,
"SPEED_SCALE": 1.2,
"VOICEVOX_API_URL": "http://localhost:50021"
}
}
}
}Establezca VOICEVOX_API_URL según sea necesario.
Puede obtener una lista de oradores de su cliente MCP utilizando la herramienta de oradores.
La herramienta de voz puede sintetizar texto a voz y reproducirlo localmente (se recomienda Mac ya que utiliza el comando afplay).
Dependencias principales
@modelcontextprotocol/sdkzodtypescript
Precauciones
Mejoras futuras
La síntesis de voz no estará disponible a menos que el motor VOICEVOX se esté ejecutando en localhost:50021.
Si está utilizando un entorno distinto a Mac, cambie la parte afplay según corresponda.
licencia
Licencia MIT
Available Tools
2 toolsspeakD
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
TDQS
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
speakersD
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
2 tool updates
v1.0.0- First observed
speak - First observed
speakers
TDQS
D1.8/5.0
Scored across 2 tools
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: 'speak' implies text-to-speech synthesis, while 'speakers' likely lists available voice options. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tools use simple, consistent naming: 'speak' and 'speakers' are both lowercase nouns, with 'speak' as a verb-like noun and 'speakers' as a plural noun. The pattern is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count2/5
With only two tools, the server feels thin for a VOICEVOX text-to-speech domain. Expected operations like adjusting voice parameters, controlling playback, or managing audio output are missing, making the set under-scoped.
Completeness2/5
The tool surface is severely incomplete for a VOICEVOX server. Core functionalities such as voice customization, audio format settings, playback control, or synthesis status checks are absent, leaving significant gaps that will hinder agent workflows.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues
Related MCP Connectors
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
MCP server for Text-to-Speech
MCP server exposing the AceDataCloud Fish Audio API (text-to-speech with voice conditioning)
Hosted text-to-speech MCP server: 66 voices in 9 languages, long-form narration, podcasts.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseDqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables AI assistants to utilize AivisSpeech Engine's high-quality voice synthesis capabilities through a standardized API interface.11-
- AlicenseBqualityFmaintenanceA server that enables Claude 3.7 and other AI agents to access VOICEVOX-compatible speech synthesis engines (AivisSpeech, VOICEVOX, COEIROINK) through the Model Context Protocol.112MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that provides text-to-speech functionality for AI agents using Microsoft Edge's text-to-speech technology, supporting multiple voices, languages, and voice customization.28MIT