Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Anam MCP Server

Anam MCP Server

Official
by anam-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

update_voice

Modify a voice's display name or description using its UUID. Provide only the fields you want to change.

Instructions

Update a voice configuration. Only provide the fields you want to change.

Args: voice_id: The UUID of the voice to update display_name: New display name description: New description

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": {
      "voice_id": "<voice_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_voice"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
voice_idYes
display_nameNo
descriptionNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.13

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses this is a mutation operation ('Update') but omits important details such as idempotency, error behavior on missing voice, side effects, or required permissions. The transparency is minimal.

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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose statement, a usage hint, and a simple list of arguments. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or excess.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters and an output schema, the description covers the purpose and usage strategy but lacks details on error handling, return value, or validation constraints. It is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter: voice_id as UUID, display_name and description as new values. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 'Update a voice configuration,' using a specific verb ('update') and resource ('voice configuration'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_voice, delete_voice, and get_voice, making its 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The description advises 'Only provide the fields you want to change,' implying partial update usage. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool (e.g., voice does not exist) or alternatives. The context is implied but not fully clarified.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools