openclaw-control-mcp

openclaw_tts_convert

Convert text to audio using text-to-speech synthesis. Returns an audio file or download link based on gateway configuration.

Instructions

Synthesize a piece of text to audio. Wraps tts.convert. Returns audio / a download URL depending on the gateway config.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "openclaw_tts_convert"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes
`voice`	No
`instance`	No	Optional OpenClaw instance to route this call to (e.g. 'default', 'work'). Falls back to the active default instance, or the OPENCLAW_GATEWAY_URL/TOKEN env vars when set. List configured instances with openclaw_setup_list.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the output varies by gateway config (audio vs. download URL) but lacks disclosure on side effects, idempotency, permissions, or resource implications. For a synthesis tool, minimal behavioral insight.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences: first for purpose, second for implementation and output. No redundancy, every word adds value. Could be improved with a brief mention of required vs. optional parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple but the description omits important details: no output schema, no constraints on text length or voice names, no hint about expected latency or size. An agent would have to infer or experiment to use it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is low (33%) with only 'instance' described. The description adds context to 'instance' (routing and fallback) but provides no additional meaning for 'text' or 'voice' beyond their schema definitions. Partially compensates but leaves gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the function: 'Synthesize a piece of text to audio.' It identifies the verb and resource, and mentions it wraps `tts.convert`. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like openclaw_tts_status, the purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, recommended contexts, or when not to use it. The description does not help the agent decide between this and other TTS or non-TTS tools.

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

Deploy Server