Skip to main content
Glama
init-ikuya

mcp-voicevox-server

by init-ikuya
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing speakers, saving audio to file, and playing audio. No overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (list_speakers, save_audio, speak_text), making it predictable.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools is well-scoped for a TTS server, covering the essential operations without being too few or too many.

    Completeness4/5

    Core functionality (listing voices, saving, playing) is covered. Missing direct audio data retrieval, but minor gap for a basic server.

  • Average 3.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a string of speaker list, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as caching, latency, or potential side effects. For a simple list retrieval, this is adequate but 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 at two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every part is purposeful and there is no redundancy.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and returns. No additional context is needed for effective use.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter info beyond the schema, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to describe.

    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 'Gets the list of speakers (characters) available in VOICEVOX Engine', which is a specific verb-resource pair. The tool name 'list_speakers' aligns perfectly, and it is well-differentiated from siblings 'save_audio' and 'speak_text'.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over its siblings or any prerequisites. It simply describes what the tool does without contextual usage advice.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool synthesizes and plays audio, but does not disclose whether it blocks, its synchronicity, network requirements, resource usage, or error behavior. The returns section is vague.

    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?

    The description is well-structured with a brief intro followed by a clear Args list. It front-loads the action and minimizes fluff. The Returns section is minimal but acceptable given output schema exists. Could be slightly more concise but overall effective.

    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 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (implied), the description covers parameters well but lacks context on dependencies (e.g., VOICEVOX service), potential errors, or audio device requirements. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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

    Parameters5/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains each parameter (text, speaker, speed, pitch, intonation, volume) with ranges, defaults, and the speaker fallback to environment variable. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

    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 the tool performs text-to-speech synthesis with VOICEVOX and plays from speakers. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_speakers' by referencing it for speaker IDs, and from 'save_audio' by implying real-time playback.

    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 mentions the default speaker from environment variable and references list_speakers for speaker IDs, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to save_audio. Usage context is implied but not formally defined.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    Without annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It covers parameter ranges and fallback to environment variable for speaker, but lacks details on file overwriting, error handling, or return value specifics (output schema exists but its content is unknown).

    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?

    The description is structured with a title, Args section, and Returns line. It is front-loaded and concise, though some defaults are redundantly listed when already in schema. No extraneous sentences.

    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 tool with 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description explains all parameters and references sibling tools. Minor omissions like file overwrite behavior or return message format prevent a higher score.

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

    Parameters5/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides full semantic detail for all 7 parameters: ranges, defaults, and how to obtain speaker IDs. This compensates completely for the schema gap.

    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 it synthesizes text with VOICEVOX and saves as WAV file, specifying the technology and output format. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_speakers' by referencing it for speaker IDs, and 'speak_text' likely does not save.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    The description explains when to use the speaker parameter and directs to list_speakers for available IDs. It does not explicitly differentiate from speak_text or state conditions for not using the tool, but the context is clear for main use.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mcp-voicevox-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-voicevox-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/init-ikuya/mcp-voicevox-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server