Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gemini-tts-mcp

gemini-tts-mcp

by tsukumonasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

auth_status

Checks authentication, project, and model readiness for Gemini TTS, returning whether speech generation is ready and which next action is needed.

Instructions

認証・プロジェクト・モデルの準備状況を確認する。

Returns: ready: 音声生成の準備が整っているか auth: 認証状態（valid / expired / needs_reauth） client_configured: OAuthクライアント(ID/SECRET)が設定済みか project_id: 解決されたプロジェクトID model / default_voice / out_dir: 現在の既定値 message: 状態の説明と次のアクション

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": "auth_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does document behavior beyond a bare purpose: it enumerates the exact state fields it evaluates (readiness, auth status values, client configuration, resolved project ID, current defaults). It stops short of stating that the call performs read-only checks with no side effects, or whether it may trigger a network/auth round-trip.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a clean field-by-field return listing that is easy to scan. The Returns block partially restates what the output schema already encodes, which is mild redundancy, but it is compact and adds Japanese-language semantics the schema may lack.

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 zero-argument status tool with an output schema, the definition supplies the purpose and a field-level expectation of the response, which is enough for correct invocation. The only real gap is workflow placement — when in the sequence an agent should call it and what to do with an expired result — which is left to the caller.

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 takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4 — there is no parameter meaning to convey. The description's Returns block is output-oriented rather than parameter-oriented, which is appropriate here.

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 first line names a specific verb and three concrete resources (認証・プロジェクト・モデル) plus the operation (準備状況を確認する), so an agent knows exactly what is being inspected. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as reauthorize or list_models, which keeps it out of the top band.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the tool is clearly a pre-flight diagnostic, and the message field is documented as returning '状態の説明と次のアクション', which hints it should be called before generation or when something fails. There is no explicit 'call this first' instruction, no statement of when not to use it, and no pointer to reauthorize for the expired case.

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