Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sing-mcp

sing-mcp

by fancyduck010
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

list_voices

Lists all cloned and official voices in your 声线 account, marking those currently used for covers with ★ so you can choose the right voice before requesting a song.

Instructions

列出声线账号里的音色（克隆的和官方的），★ 是翻唱正在用的。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_voices"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose read-like behavior (listing), the two voice categories returned, and the meaning of the ★ marker, which substitutes for the missing output schema. It does not state permission or auth requirements, ordering, or whether the list is paginated.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the scope (cloned and official) and then explains the ★ glyph inline. No wording is wasted.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, explaining both the two voice categories and the ★ marker covers nearly everything an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around ordering, result size, and account/permission prerequisites.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly presents it as a no-argument listing operation.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("list the voices in the voice account") and scopes the result set (cloned and official). It does not name a sibling such as cover_song, so an agent must infer the relationship, but the resource itself is 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 usage is only implied: an agent can guess this is a discovery step before choosing a voice for a cover. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite, and no stated alternative, so guidance is adequate but thin.

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