Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Tapra MCP server

Tapra MCP server

Official
by tapra-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Tapra voices

list_voices
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve Tapra voices for text-to-speech and voiceover creation, with descriptions, and check whether voice cloning is available.

Instructions

List the Tapra voices for text_to_speech and create_voiceover, with a description of each. Free. Also answers questions about voice cloning, which is not currently available.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_voices"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-schema information: the call is 'Free' (no credit consumption) and voice cloning is not currently available, which prevents a wasteful query path. Return shape (a description per voice) is hinted but not detailed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loading the resource and the consumers, then the cost note and the cloning caveat. Slightly fragmented ('Free.' as a standalone sentence) but every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does tell the agent roughly what comes back ('with a description of each') plus the free/not-available caveats. A sentence on ordering or count would make it fully complete, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; nothing in the description is needed to clarify inputs, and it does not waste space pretending otherwise.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the Tapra voices') and ties it to the two sibling tools that consume the result (text_to_speech, create_voiceover), which distinguishes it from every other listing tool in the set. It also scopes an unusual secondary capability (voice cloning Q&A) explicitly.

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 mention of text_to_speech and create_voiceover makes the implied workflow clear: call this before picking a voice. It does not state exclusions or prerequisites explicitly, but for a zero-argument read-only listing tool there is little else to route on.

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