Edge TTS MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Returns: Current settings,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first ('Get current TTS configuration.') and additional return information in a separate line. It avoids unnecessary words, but the 'Returns:' section could be integrated more smoothly, slightly affecting structure.

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?

Given that there's an output schema (which should detail the return values), the description doesn't need to explain return specifics. However, for a tool with no annotations and sibling tools present, it lacks context on usage scenarios and behavioral traits. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps in guiding the agent.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, but that's appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied since there are no parameters to document, and the description doesn't introduce confusion.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get current TTS configuration.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('current TTS configuration'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_available_voices' or 'speak', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to choose 'get_config' over 'list_available_voices' (which might list voice options) or 'speak' (which might use the configuration). Without any usage context or exclusions, the agent lacks direction on tool selection.

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