Feature Request: Add Edge TTS support

[dongkun666]

Summary

I'd like to request adding Edge TTS as a new TTS provider in OpenClaw.

Current State

Currently, OpenClaw only supports three TTS providers:

1. Piper
2. Windows (built-in)
3. ElevenLabs

Feature Request

I would love to see Edge TTS (Microsoft Azure's free speech synthesis API) added as a fourth provider.

Benefits

• No API Key required — completely free to use
• High quality natural voices, including popular Chinese voices such as:
  • Xiaoxiao (晓晓)
  • Yunyang (云扬)
  • Yunxi (云希)
• Easy integration — Edge TTS is widely used in the open-source community with mature libraries available (e.g., edge-tts for Python)
• No additional cost for users who want high-quality TTS without subscribing to paid services like ElevenLabs

Proposed Implementation

Add an edge TTS provider option alongside the existing piper, windows, and elevenlabs providers. The implementation could leverage existing open-source Edge TTS libraries to handle the WebSocket-based communication with Microsoft's speech service.

Use Case

This would be especially valuable for users who need natural-sounding Chinese text-to-speech without incurring costs, bridging the gap between the basic Windows built-in voices and the premium ElevenLabs voices.

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: keeping this open for maintainer follow-up; there is still a little grit to resolve. Reviewed September 4, 2026, 8:57 AM ET / 12:57 UTC.

Summary
Keep open for a maintainer product decision. Edge TTS is absent from both current main and the latest release, while the existing TTS surface already has explicit cloud-provider privacy, readiness, fallback, settings, UI, MCP, and test boundaries that a new anonymous cloud provider must satisfy.

Reproducibility: not applicable. This requests a new provider rather than reporting a failure of an established Edge TTS feature.

Ways to help us reproduce this

• Add a screenshot or short recording showing the behavior.
• Add expected vs actual behavior.
• Include redacted logs or terminal output.

Maintainer decision needed

Question	Recommendation
Should OpenClaw core support Edge TTS as a cloud provider without a user API key, and what privacy, service-support, and fallback contract should govern it?	Keep the current provider set: Do not add Edge TTS to core unless a maintained service contract and user-facing privacy model are approved.

Why: Current code supports multiple providers but treats cloud text egress and readiness as explicit product behavior; the issue does not define the service contract or obtain maintainer sponsorship.

Next step
A maintainer must choose the cloud-provider and privacy contract before a bounded implementation can be safely scoped.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Only add Edge TTS after a maintainer approves the supported endpoint, response-text disclosure, failure and fallback behavior, and the required settings, MCP, UI, documentation, and regression-test scope.

Do we have a high-confidence way to reproduce the issue?

Not applicable. This requests a new provider rather than reporting a failure of an established Edge TTS feature.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Unclear. The requested provider is not implemented, but directly adding it before a maintainer defines its cloud-service and privacy contract would bypass the existing provider boundaries.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Remaining risk / open question:

• An Edge implementation would send assistant response text to another cloud service, so provider support, disclosure, cancellation, failure handling, and fallback behavior need an explicit contract before the existing local-first choices are extended.
• The request does not establish maintainer sponsorship for an unauthenticated cloud-provider integration or its long-term service reliability boundary.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 35cb92dcf28d.

Label changes

Label justifications:

• P3: This is an optional new provider request with no demonstrated regression in existing text-to-speech behavior.

Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

• Current provider catalog: Current main defines exactly Piper, Windows, ElevenLabs, and MiniMax in the provider catalog. It contains no Edge provider. (src/OpenClaw.Shared/Capabilities/TtsCapability.cs:41, 35cb92dcf28d)
• Released provider catalog: The latest supplied release commit, v2026.7.1-4, has the same four-provider catalog and no Edge entry. (src/OpenClaw.Shared/Capabilities/TtsCapability.cs:41, c7c6fb06be03)
• Runtime dispatch boundary: The synthesis service explicitly dispatches only the four current providers and rejects any other provider, so this is a new provider integration rather than a documentation or configuration-only change. (src/OpenClaw.Tray.WinUI/Services/TextToSpeech/TextToSpeechService.cs:88, 35cb92dcf28d)
• Existing cloud-provider privacy boundary: Voice Settings lists the current providers and explicitly tells users that cloud TTS providers send response text to their services. An Edge integration needs the same user-facing disclosure and behavior contract. (src/OpenClaw.Tray.WinUI/Pages/VoiceSettingsPage.xaml:310, 35cb92dcf28d)
• Recent provider implementation history: The most recent provider addition, MiniMax, changed capability registration, settings, UI, synthesis client, localization, CLI documentation, and focused tests. That establishes the expected integration scope, not an approved Edge contract. (src/OpenClaw.Shared/Capabilities/TtsCapability.cs:15, ff3fb35a7d32)

Likely related people:

• Karen: Suggested for follow-up; no historical authorship or introduction is verified. (role: unverified routing candidate; confidence: low)
• Barbara Kudiess: Suggested for follow-up; no historical authorship or introduction is verified. (role: unverified routing candidate; confidence: low)
• Régis Brid: Suggested for follow-up; no historical authorship or introduction is verified. (role: unverified routing candidate; confidence: low)

How this review workflow works

• ClawSweeper keeps one durable marker-backed review comment per issue or PR.
• Re-runs edit this comment so the latest verdict, findings, and automation markers stay together instead of adding duplicate bot comments.
• A fresh review can be triggered by eligible @clawsweeper re-review comments, exact-item GitHub events, scheduled/background review runs, or manual workflow dispatch.
• PR/issue authors and users with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review or @clawsweeper re-run on an open PR or issue to request a fresh review only.
• Maintainers can also comment @clawsweeper review to request a fresh review only.
• Fresh-review commands do not start repair, autofix, rebase, CI repair, or automerge.
• Maintainer-only repair and merge flows require explicit commands such as @clawsweeper autofix, @clawsweeper automerge, @clawsweeper fix ci, or @clawsweeper address review.
• Maintainers can comment @clawsweeper explain to ask for more context, or @clawsweeper stop to stop active automation.

[mmaassddffggyy22-ctrl]

أهلاً بيك يا بطل في أول فيديو من دورة الكلاسيك كنترول من التمهيد للاحتراف!
أنا سعيد جداً إنك أخدت القرار ده النهارده عشان تحترف واحد من أهم المجالات اللي مش ممكن أي مصنع أو مشروع يستغني عنها.

لو أنت لسه مبتدئ تماماً وخايف من تعقيد اللوحات والأسلاك المتشابكة... حابب أطمنك وأقولك: أوعدك في نهاية الـ 3 ساعات دول هتكون قادر تقرأ أي مخطط، وتجمع لوحة كاملة بنفسك، وتكتشف أي عطل بثقة وبدون أي خوف!

في فيديو النهارده، هنفك أول وأكبر لغز بيواجه أي حد داخل عالم الكلاسيك كنترول... وهو: "يعني إيه أصلاً كلاسيك كنترول؟ وإيه هو السر العجيب اللي بيفرق بين دائرة القوى ودائرة التحكم؟"

ركز معايا كويس جداً، هات كشكولك وقلمك وشاي الجميل، ويلا

[github-actions]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale due to inactivity.
Please add updated OpenClaw Windows details or it will be closed.