Single tool 'aivis-speech-synthesis' has a well-structured input schema with 11 parameters, all typed and constrained (numeric ranges, defaults). However, the tool description is in Japanese ('AivisSpeech音声合成のMCPサーバー') and extremely brief (~20 chars in English equivalent). Parameter descriptions are present but minimal. No output schema is documented, the tool returns audioData as ArrayBuffer but this is not formally specified. The tool performs a stateful multi-step operation (audio_query → synthesis) but lacks idempotency hints or confirmation patterns for a destructive audio operation. Error handling exists but lacks recovery guidance for LLMs.
AivisSpeech音声合成のMCPサーバー
Tool description is non-English and extremely brief (~20 chars). LLMs cannot determine when/why to select this tool. Baseline: A+ tools have 50-200 char descriptions in English.
Output schema not documented. Tool returns audioData (ArrayBuffer) but no formal schema specifies structure, type, or encoding. LLMs cannot plan downstream operations.
Destructive operation (audio synthesis with side effects: file I/O, playback) lacks confirmation or dry-run pattern. Agents cannot safely retry on ambiguous failures.
Error messages in Japanese ('スピーカー一覧の取得に失敗しました'). LLMs trained primarily on English may misinterpret or fail to parse recovery guidance.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 33 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
Parameter 'speaker_id' is optional but no guidance on default behavior if omitted. Does it use speaker 0? Fail? Prompt user? Undocumented dependencies cause silent misuse.