elevenlabs_delete_project
Delete Studio Project. Deletes a Studio project.
Bulk support: accepts project_ids for batched execution.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| project_ids | No |
ElevenLabs
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare destructiveHint: false, but the description explicitly says the tool 'Deletes a Studio project.' This is a direct contradiction. Additionally, the description does not mention irreversibility, cascading effects, required permissions, or response behavior, which a destructive operation should disclose.
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 description is short and front-loaded, but the first two sentences are redundant: 'Delete Studio Project. Deletes a Studio project.' The bulk-support sentence adds value, but the repeated statement wastes space.
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?
For a destructive tool with no output schema and conflicting annotations, the description is underspecified. It omits important context such as deletion scope, reversibility, side effects on associated chapters or project data, and account handling. The bulk-support note is helpful but insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter-semantics burden. It adds some meaning by noting that project_ids enables 'batched execution,' but it does not explain the relationship between project_id and project_ids, the role of account, or whether project_ids can substitute for the required project_id.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete Studio Project. Deletes a Studio project.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete tools that target other resources like dubbing, voice, or speech history.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as elevenlabs_edit_project, elevenlabs_delete_dubbing_project, or other project-related operations. The only usage-related note is bulk support via project_ids, which is a capability statement, not a when-to-use guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
There are many tools with overlapping purposes, such as multiple voice retrieval tools (get_voice_by_id, get_voices, get_user_voices_v2, get_library_voices) and several dubbing transcript segment editors with only subtle naming differences. The inclusion of platform-level tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) alongside ElevenLabs API tools further blurs boundaries.
Naming Consistency1/5
Naming is highly inconsistent. Most tools have the 'elevenlabs_' prefix, but some do not (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). Several tools have truncated/random suffix names (e.g., elevenlabs_dubbing_target_transcript_segmen_b565e6, elevenlabs_get_pronunciation_dictionary_ver_45baf2), and one tool is in Portuguese (elevenlabs_list_accounts). This mixture of conventions and languages makes the pattern unpredictable.
Tool Count1/5
With 155 tools, the server is extremely bloated. It mixes a comprehensive ElevenLabs API surface with unrelated MCP platform tools (marketplace, authenticate, report_bug, etc.) that belong in a separate toolkit. This is a severe mismatch between the apparent purpose (ElevenLabs audio services) and the sheer number of tools.
Completeness3/5
The ElevenLabs-specific tools cover a wide range of operations (text-to-speech, voice management, dubbing, pronunciation dictionaries, Studio projects, workspace administration, order management), making it fairly complete for those domains. However, the inclusion of unrelated platform tools and the lack of a clear focus mean that an agent would have difficulty navigating this large surface, and some operations like music finetuning or speech engines appear only partially covered.