Assign a cloned voice to a character so later TTS generation voices that character's lines. Required only when producing a final video, not for cloning or preview.
把音色绑到某角色,之后 generate_tts 用它给该角色配音。免费。只有要出片时才需要这步——克隆和试听都不需要角色。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| voice_id | Yes | 来自 clone_voice / list_voices 的 voice_id(形如 lib:12) | |
| character_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.57Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful disclosures: the operation is free, it has a downstream effect via generate_tts, and it is only relevant at the final production stage. It does not mention rebinding/overwrite behavior, but for a simple binding operation the provided context is reasonably 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?
Three short clauses deliver the action, downstream consequence, cost, and usage condition with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
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 setter with no output schema, the description covers purpose, downstream use, cost, and the exact production stage when the tool is needed. Minor omissions such as character preconditions and overwrite semantics are non-essential for making a correct call.
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?
voice_id is well documented in the schema with source and format, but character_id has only type constraints. The description clarifies that character_id refers to the character being bound, which adds some relational meaning, yet it does not tell the agent where to obtain a valid character_id or add constraints beyond the schema. At 50% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: bind a voice to a character. It then states the downstream effect (generate_tts uses it for that character) and explicitly separates this step from cloning and auditioning, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.
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?
It gives an explicit when-to-use condition: only needed when producing the final output, and an explicit exclusion: cloning and trial listening do not require a character. This is direct, practical guidance that an agent can act on without further inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.