alexa_speakSpeak plain text on a specific Echo device using native text-to-speech, with no announcement chime.
Make Alexa speak plain text directly on a specific Echo device using native text-to-speech (no announcement chime).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The text for Alexa to speak | |
| serialNumber | Yes | Serial number of the Echo device (use alexa_list_devices to find it) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the tool uses native TTS, speaks on a single device, and does not add a chime. However, it does not mention possible side effects such as interrupting current playback, or what happens when the device is unavailable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then appends the key differentiator 'no announcement chime.' Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with complete schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient for correct selection and invocation. It lacks only minor behavioral details like side effects or error handling, which are not essential for parameter use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters already have clear descriptions. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by qualifying the text as 'plain text' (versus SSML) and emphasizing that speech targets a specific Echo device via serialNumber, which helps disambiguate from sibling tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (make Alexa speak), the input kind (plain text), and the target (a specific Echo device). It further distinguishes itself from siblings by noting 'native text-to-speech' and 'no announcement chime,' which separates it from alexa_speak_ssml and alexa_announce.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear usage context: use it for plain-text speech on a specific device without an announcement chime. It implicitly excludes SSML and announcement-style tools, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.