Retrieve the current FlowSpeech voice catalog, optionally filtered by gender, to find available voices for text-to-speech generation.
Retrieve the current voice catalog from FlowSpeech.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gender | No | all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / gender / descriptionRemoved value: -"Filter by gender. Default: \"all\""v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, but there is no mention of permissions, rate limits, whether results are cached, or whether the catalog is paginated — all of which matter for a listing tool.
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?
One short sentence with no wasted words and the verb-resource pair front-loaded. It is efficient but borders on under-specified rather than deliberately terse.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should say what the catalog contains (voice IDs, names, languages, genders) so an agent knows what it can extract. That information is absent, leaving the agent unable to plan the follow-up call to flowspeech_tts.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single optional 'gender' parameter (enum male/female/all with default 'all') is never acknowledged in the description. The schema's enum values are self-explanatory, but the description adds nothing about what filtering means or how 'all' behaves.
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?
Specific verb (Retrieve) plus specific resource (voice catalog) from a named service. The resource is clearly distinct from sibling tools like flowspeech_tts, flowspeech_quota, and flowspeech_get_job, though the description never explicitly contrasts with them.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, nor any note that it is the discovery step for voice IDs consumed by flowspeech_tts / flowspeech_tts_multi. The reader must infer that from sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.