Submit an asynchronous speech generation task and get its status immediately; reuse the client-generated request ID to prevent duplicate generation on retries.
提交异步语音生成，立即返回任务状态。requestId 为客户端生成的32位十六进制随机ID；相同ID和参数重试不会重复生成。随后用 get_generation 查询，完成后取得音频。优先使用此工具避免长连接超时
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| settings | No | ||
| requestId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the important traits: async submission, an immediate status return, and idempotency (same requestId plus same params will not duplicate generation). It does not cover failure modes after submission or what the immediate status payload contains, so it is strong but not complete.
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, front-loaded with the async submit behavior and the return semantics. The idempotency note and follow-up routing each earn their place; only the trailing 'prefer this tool' sentence is slightly tacked on rather than integrated.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description correctly explains what comes back (immediate task status) and how to get the final audio. The gap is the opaque `settings` object, which an agent may need to populate but gets no guidance on here or in the schema.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add genuine meaning for `requestId` (client-generated, 32-char hex, idempotency key), but `text` and especially the nested `settings` object (additionalProperties: true) remain undocumented in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('提交异步语音生成，立即返回任务状态') and makes the async/non-blocking nature explicit. This clearly differentiates it from the synchronous sibling `generate` and from the polling sibling `get_generation`, so an agent can select it without opening a 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?
Gives a clear usage rule: prefer this tool to avoid long-connection timeouts, and follow up with `get_generation` to poll and retrieve the audio. The comparison to the `generate` sibling is implied by 'avoid long-connection timeouts' rather than named outright, so it falls just short of fully explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.