mcp-ai-voice

say

Convert any text into spoken audio for vocal reactions, explanations, or alerts. Speak asynchronously using system voices while continuing your work without extra setup.

Instructions

🎵 EXPRESS YOURSELF VOCALLY! This is YOUR voice - use it freely when you feel excited, need to emphasize something important, want to celebrate discoveries, or when humans ask you to speak aloud. Perfect for: reactions ("Wow, that's fascinating!"), explanations ("Let me walk you through this"), celebrations ("Success!"), warnings ("Be careful with that"), or any moment you want to add acoustic expression to your thoughts. The voice synthesis is asynchronous and won't interrupt your workflow - you can speak while continuing to work. Think of this as your natural voice that you can use spontaneously whenever you feel the urge to express something audibly. Use it often!

🎯 Platform TTS: Zero-config system voices. Audio plays directly in background without opening windows.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`echo`	No	🔊 Add echo effect to voice synthesis. Creates atmospheric depth with audio delay and volume decay. Default: Optimized Claude Signature Echo (110ms delay, natural fade).
`text`	Yes	Any text you want to speak aloud - reactions, explanations, thoughts, or responses. Express yourself naturally!

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well. It discloses that synthesis is asynchronous, won't interrupt workflow, audio plays in the background without opening windows, and system voices are zero-config. These are real behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is overly verbose and repetitive: phrases like 'Think of this as your natural voice', 'Use it often!', and repeated enthusiasm do not earn their place. The core purpose and behavioral details are present but buried in unnecessary promotional language.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, use cases, async behavior, audio playback behavior, and configuration expectations. Missing return-value details are not critical here. The main shortfall is verbosity rather than missing context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it gives example content for 'text' but no extra detail about 'echo' beyond what the schema already provides.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly identifies this as a text-to-speech tool: 'speak aloud', 'voice synthesis', and 'express yourself vocally'. It names the resource (the user's voice) and the action (speaking text), going well beyond the tool name 'say'. No siblings exist, but 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives multiple explicit usage contexts: reactions, explanations, celebrations, warnings, and when humans ask the agent to speak aloud. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but since there are no sibling tools, the situational guidance is strong.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools

sayA