Edge TTS MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool lists voices and returns details, but doesn't describe important behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or what format the returned details include. The output schema exists, but the description doesn't leverage this to add context about the tool's behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though the formatting with quotes might be slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics reasonably well, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context that would be helpful for an AI agent, especially with no annotations to fill gaps.

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 description adds meaningful context about the single parameter 'language' that goes beyond the schema's minimal coverage (0%). It explains that it filters by language code with examples (e.g., en, ru, de) and that empty means 'all'. This compensates well for the schema's lack of description, though it doesn't mention format constraints beyond examples.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('available TTS voices'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_config' 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 like 'speak' (which presumably generates speech) or 'get_config' (which might retrieve configuration). There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use this tool.

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