MCP Fish Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.3
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear, distinct role: generating audio, retrieving individual models, listing models, checking single or batch task status, and providing usage guidance. There is no meaningful overlap between any of the tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent fish_ prefix with a clear verb_noun pattern: generate_audio, get_model, get_task, get_tasks_batch, get_usage_guide, list_models. The naming is predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools is an appropriate, well-scoped count for a TTS-focused server. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy or bloat.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers the core generation workflow: create a task, poll its status, check batches, and browse voice models. Minor gaps like canceling a task or listing all tasks without IDs are absent, but the main workflow is fully supported.
Average 3.7/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 21 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on September 5, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must bear the full burden of explaining behavior. It implies a read-only operation by using 'List', but it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it mention pagination, rate limits, or any potential side effects. The return statement ('JSON response') is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using only two sentences. This is efficient and avoids any fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse. The structure is clear: action + resource, followed by a straightforward return note.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema is undefined and the tool lists models, the description lacks essential context. It does not state that the response contains a list of models, nor does it mention that pagination is supported (despite pagination parameters existing). This leaves the agent guessing about the structure and breadth of the response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all 9 parameters with descriptions, meeting the high coverage baseline. However, the description adds no extra parameter context—it merely repeats the endpoint. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description could have clarified how these parameters interact (e.g., filtering by tag vs. language).
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?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('available Fish voice models'), which is unambiguous. It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like fish_generate_audio and fish_get_model, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 the alternatives. The description does not mention that this should be used for browsing models, or that fish_get_model should be used for a specific model, leaving the selection criteria entirely unaddressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the JSON return shape but omits critical behavior such as async/callback_url returning a task_id before audio is ready and the need to poll fish_get_task for results. This is a significant transparency gap for a complex synthesis API.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The first sentence is an efficient purpose statement and the example is useful. However, the 'Use this when' bullets largely restate the first sentence ('convert text to speech' is nearly identical to 'generate speech audio from text'), adding redundancy without new information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex tool with 22 optional parameters, asynchronous modes, and voice-cloning options, yet the description only covers the basic synchronous path. It omits operational guidance for async/callback_url, references/reference_audio_url, and retrieving results via fish_get_task, so an agent could easily misuse the tool for non-default use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The example adds practical semantics for text and reference_id, but the description does not explain parameter relationships like references vs reference_id or async vs callback_url, which the schema also leaves implicit.
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 action ('Generate speech audio from text') and the service ('Fish TTS'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get/list tools. The 'Use this when' bullets reinforce the purpose and leave no doubt about what the tool is for.
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?
Provides explicit 'Use this when' conditions for text-to-speech and narration, giving clear invocation context. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool generates audio, so the guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states that the tool returns a 'JSON response from /fish/model/{id}', giving a minimal glimpse into the HTTP call and return format. However, it does not mention any side effects, error conditions, or required permissions, which is a minor gap for a read-only operation but acceptable given the simplicity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences totaling under 20 words. It efficiently conveys the purpose and return type without any unnecessary prose.
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?
Given the tool's trivial complexity, a complete parameter schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It clearly identifies the action and the endpoint. However, it lacks a mention of how this relates to sibling tools like fish_list_models, which would help an agent decide when to use this tool. This is a minor gap, but otherwise the description covers all essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the single parameter model_id with a clear description, so the schema fully explains its meaning. The tool description adds no additional information about the parameter beyond that, meeting the baseline but providing no extra value.
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?
The description clearly states the function: 'Get a Fish voice model by ID.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'by ID' explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fish_list_models. The return note about the endpoint adds clarity without ambiguity.
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?
The description implies usage when you need a specific model by ID, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like fish_list_models or fish_get_task. It does not mention any exclusions or when to prefer alternatives, so the usage context is only inferred from the tool's name and parameter requirements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses task states and result behavior (including audio URL and error message), but omits details like whether the operation is read-only, possible 404 errors, or polling frequency limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear opening sentence, bullet-point task states, and a concise return summary. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.
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 low-complexity status-check tool with an output schema available, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, states, and expected result. It lacks a note about error handling (e.g., task not found), but this is minor given the schema presence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is only one parameter, task_id, and the schema provides full description (100% coverage) including its source from fish_generate_audio. The tool description adds no extra parameter context, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states 'Query the status and result of a Fish audio generation task' with a specific verb and resource. The singular 'a task' differentiates it from sibling fish_get_tasks_batch, and the mention of retrieving audio URL clarifies its purpose.
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?
Explicitly instructs 'Use this to check if a task is complete and retrieve the resulting audio URL' and provides polling guidance via task states ('keep polling'). However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Query') and return contents, but does not detail error behavior, rate limits, or potential side effects. This is adequate for a status query but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences with no fluff, front-loads the primary purpose in the first sentence, and every sentence conveys meaningful information (purpose, efficiency, return data).
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?
Given the simple tool (one parameter, output schema provided), the description is sufficiently complete: it states what the tool does and what it returns. It could have explicitly mentioned the singular alternative or any limits, but this is not necessary for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter task_ids ('List of task IDs to query status for'). The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states 'Query the status of multiple Fish tasks at once' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from the singular sibling fish_get_task by emphasizing 'multiple' and 'batch' efficiency.
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?
It implies when to use this tool ('in a single request' for efficiency) versus repeatedly calling a single-task tool, but does not explicitly name the alternative fish_get_task or state exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the batch use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns a 'Complete usage guide', which tells the user the primary output. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only or non-destructive, but that is obvious for a guide tool. It could mention that no state is changed, but the description adequately conveys its non-mutating nature.
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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The 'Returns:' line somewhat duplicates the initial statement but is short. Overall, every sentence contributes useful information, and there is little fluff.
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?
The tool is a simple guide with no parameters and a self-explanatory output. An output schema exists but isn't detailed in the prompt, so the description's mention of 'parameters, examples, and best practices' gives adequate context about the content of the returned guide. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because there are no parameters to explain, which is appropriate.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('usage guide for Fish TTS tools'), and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools that perform actual TTS operations or model queries. It explicitly states this is a guide for using the Fish tools, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 description clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need guidance on how to use the Fish TTS tools effectively. It mentions parameters, examples, and best practices, which signals the type of information provided. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a guide tool this context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![FishMCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AceDataCloud/FishMCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AceDataCloud/FishMCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![FishMCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AceDataCloud/FishMCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AceDataCloud/FishMCP)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/AceDataCloud/FishMCP'

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