List Voices. Returns a list of all available voices for a user. Stops working once the user's workspace exceeds 500 voices.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "elevenlabs_get_voices"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| show_legacy | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds a concrete behavioral limit: 'Stops working once the user's workspace exceeds 500 voices,' which is valuable context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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. Every word adds value, particularly the critical limit. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose.
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?
For a simple list tool with two undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description omits essential parameter meaning and return format. It does mention a failure condition, which is helpful, but completeness is insufficient for the agent to use the tool correctly without additional knowledge.
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%, and the description provides no explanation of the 'account' or 'show_legacy' parameters. The description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation but does not, making it impossible for the agent to understand parameter semantics.
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 it lists voices and returns all available voices for a user, which is a specific verb+resource. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like elevenlabs_get_library_voices, but the scope ('for a user') provides some distinction.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The only usage hint is the 500-voice limit, which indirectly suggests it may not be suitable for large workspaces but doesn't name alternatives or criteria for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.