Get Pronunciation Dictionaries. Get a list of the pronunciation dictionaries you have access to and their metadata
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| sort_direction | No | ||
| include_archived | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., 'you have access to' implies authentication scope), but does not mention pagination, sorting, or output structure. Since annotations exist, the bar is lower, but the description adds little beyond the structured data.
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?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose without any fluff or redundancy. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the tool has 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the return value structure, pagination behavior, or sorting semantics. While annotations cover safety, the description leaves significant gaps for a real-world usage scenario.
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% for 6 parameters, and the description provides no explanation of parameters like 'sort', 'cursor', 'page_size', or 'include_archived'. The description must compensate for the lack of schema documentation but fails to do so, leaving agents without any guidance on how to filter or paginate results.
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?
The description clearly states the action (Get) and resource (Pronunciation Dictionaries), and specifies that it retrieves a list of accessible dictionaries with their metadata. This distinguishes it from the singular variant (elevenlabs_get_pronunciation_dictionary_metadata) and other dictionary-related tools.
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?
The description explains what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like the singular metadata endpoint or update/patch operations. The plural 'dictionaries' implies listing vs. singular, but no clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.