Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
voicesmith

voicesmith

by fergo5002
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Speak

speak

Converts text to speech with a selected voice and returns audio file paths and quality scores, or a job ID while rendering continues.

Instructions

Render text in voice. Returns file paths and quality scores, or a job id if still running.

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": "<voice>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "speak"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes
voiceYes
polishNo
qualityNobalanced
output_pathNo
wait_secondsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape (file paths, quality scores, or job id) which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about file creation side effects, cost/latency, rate limits, or what wait_seconds exhaustion means.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with the core action first and the return contract second; nothing is padded. Brevity comes at the cost of coverage rather than from wordiness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out, but with four undocumented parameters and no async/polling guidance on a tool that can return a job id, an agent lacks what it needs to invoke this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% with six parameters, yet the description only names the two required ones. polish, quality, output_path, and wait_seconds are entirely undocumented, leaving an agent to guess at defaults and effects.

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?

"Render ``text`` in ``voice``" names a specific verb and resources, so an agent can tell this is the synthesis tool rather than a listing or status tool. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_voices or job_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. It mentions a job id may be returned when still running but never points to job_status for polling, nor when to prefer short sync calls over wait_seconds.

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