Generate speech synchronously from text and return audio ID, duration, and WAV file path. Use submit_generation for long-running tasks.
同步生成，长耗时优先使用 submit_generation。完整生成语音，返回 id、duration 和音频位置。path 为本机 WAV 文件的绝对路径
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | 需要朗读的正文 | |
| settings | No | 声音参数，与 HTTP API 同名，例如 modelId、voiceId、voxMode、voiceDescription、speaker、referenceText、seed、modelOptions |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the most important trait, namely that this is a blocking synchronous call, and it names the return values, but it says nothing about side effects on disk (whether an existing WAV file is overwritten), permissions or authentication, timeouts, or how a failure is reported.
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?
Four short clauses, with the sync-vs-async routing rule front-loaded before the functional description and the return/path clarification last. Every clause carries information, and nothing is padded.
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 two-parameter speech-generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does cover the return shape (which is good, since no output schema exists). However, it leaves the open `settings` object undefined beyond "same names as the HTTP API", so an agent cannot tell which keys are valid, and it omits blocking and timeout behavior for a call that produces a local file.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both `text` and `settings` documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The mention of "path" clarifies a returned field rather than an input parameter, and the nested `settings` object is described only by reference to the HTTP API, a point the description does not expand on.
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 names a specific verb and resource ("完整生成语音" / fully generate speech) and explicitly distinguishes this tool from its async sibling submit_generation through the word "同步生成" (synchronous generation). Because it also names the return fields (id, duration, audio location), an agent can select this tool over status/get_generation without opening the schema.
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 states the condition for choosing the alternative: "长耗时优先使用 submit_generation" tells the agent to route long-running work elsewhere. This is a clear when-to-use rule, but it does not explain what counts as "long" or how this tool relates to siblings such as get_generation or cancel_generation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.