Skip to main content
Glama
uraoz

棒読みちゃんMCPサーバー (Node.js版)

by uraoz

read_text

Convert text to speech using Bouyomichan via MCP server, enabling adjustable voice types, volume, speed, and pitch for AI assistants.

Instructions

テキストを棒読みちゃんで読み上げます

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Handler for read_text tool that invokes speakBouyomi and formats MCP response.
    async ({ text, voice = 0, volume = -1, speed = -1, tone = -1 }) => {
      const statusCode = await speakBouyomi(text, voice, volume, speed, tone);
      
      if (statusCode === 200) {
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: `読み上げました`
            }
          ]
        };
      } else {
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: `読み上げに失敗しました。ステータスコード: ${statusCode}`
            }
          ],
          isError: true
        };
      }
    }
  • Input schema for read_text tool using Zod validators.
    {
      text: z.string().describe("読み上げるテキスト"),
      voice: z.number().default(0).describe("音声の種類(0: 女性1、1: 男性1、2: 女性2、...)"),
      volume: z.number().default(-1).describe("音量(-1: デフォルト、0-100: 音量レベル)"),
      speed: z.number().default(-1).describe("速度(-1: デフォルト、50-200: 速度レベル)"),
      tone: z.number().default(-1).describe("音程(-1: デフォルト、50-200: 音程レベル)")
    },
  • src/index.ts:42-76 (registration)
    Registration of the read_text tool on the MCP server.
    server.tool(
      "read_text",
      "テキストを棒読みちゃんで読み上げます",
      {
        text: z.string().describe("読み上げるテキスト"),
        voice: z.number().default(0).describe("音声の種類(0: 女性1、1: 男性1、2: 女性2、...)"),
        volume: z.number().default(-1).describe("音量(-1: デフォルト、0-100: 音量レベル)"),
        speed: z.number().default(-1).describe("速度(-1: デフォルト、50-200: 速度レベル)"),
        tone: z.number().default(-1).describe("音程(-1: デフォルト、50-200: 音程レベル)")
      },
      async ({ text, voice = 0, volume = -1, speed = -1, tone = -1 }) => {
        const statusCode = await speakBouyomi(text, voice, volume, speed, tone);
        
        if (statusCode === 200) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `読み上げました`
              }
            ]
          };
        } else {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `読み上げに失敗しました。ステータスコード: ${statusCode}`
              }
            ],
            isError: true
          };
        }
      }
    );
  • Utility function to send text-to-speech request to localhost:50080/Talk via axios.
    async function speakBouyomi(
      text: string = 'ゆっくりしていってね',
      voice: number = 0,
      volume: number = -1,
      speed: number = -1,
      tone: number = -1
    ): Promise<number> {
      try {
        const response = await axios.get('http://localhost:50080/Talk', {
          params: {
            text,
            voice,
            volume,
            speed,
            tone
          }
        });
        return response.status;
      } catch (error) {
        console.error('棒読みちゃんへのリクエストに失敗しました:', error);
        return 500;
      }
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the behavioral trait of using a monotone voice (棒読みちゃん), which adds some context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't disclose other important behaviors like whether it requires internet access, has rate limits, handles different languages, or what happens on errors. The description is minimal and lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes a stylistic detail (monotone voice). There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on output format (e.g., audio file, stream), error handling, or performance characteristics. For a text-to-speech tool, more context on behavior and results would be helpful, though the low complexity mitigates this.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't contradict the schema. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the description appropriately focuses on functionality rather than inputs.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the tool's purpose as 'reading text aloud with a monotone voice' (棒読みちゃん), which is clear but somewhat vague. It specifies the action (read aloud) and the style (monotone), but doesn't distinguish from siblings since none exist. The description isn't tautological but lacks specific details about the resource or output format.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for text-to-speech with a monotone voice, but there's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context for when this specific style is appropriate. With no sibling tools, differentiation isn't needed, but general usage context is missing.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/uraoz/bouyomichan-mcp-nodejs'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server